Margot Davis

The applicant, founder of a carpentry business, sought an oppression remedy against the respondent, the younger active manager and 49% shareholder.

The parties had entered into a unanimous shareholders' agreement to transition the business to the respondent while completing existing projects.

The respondent breached the agreement and his fiduciary duties by usurping the company's employees for his new competing business, failing to maintain proper financial records, and causing the original company to fail.

The court found the respondent liable for oppression and ordered him and his new company to jointly and severally disgorge $2,248,328 in profits.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their appeal of a solicitor's account assessment.

They argued the appeal judge denied them procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment, muting one of the appellants during a virtual hearing, and proceeding without full transcripts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the judge properly exercised his discretion to refuse the adjournment and to control the court's process by muting a disruptive litigant.

The court also upheld the assessment officer's findings and the award of substantial indemnity costs against the appellants.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to summarily dismiss the respondent's motion to stay the enforcement proceeding for abuse of process.

The respondent alleged that Staff failed to adequately protect privileged documents obtained during a related criminal investigation.

The Tribunal held that the applicable standard for summary dismissal of a stay motion is the 'tenable case' standard, and that the Supreme Court's decision in Haevischer does not apply outside the criminal context.

The Tribunal found that Staff failed to establish that the respondent's motion had no reasonable prospect of success, as the alleged breach of privilege could potentially undermine the integrity of the justice system even if it did not compromise the fairness of the hearing.

Staff's motion was dismissed.

The Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal of a Capital Markets Tribunal decision on the basis of prematurity.

The Tribunal had previously ruled that the Wagg process did not apply to documents the OSC obtained through its own investigation and intended to use in a merits hearing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the Tribunal's evidentiary ruling was an interlocutory decision, not a final decision, and therefore no appeal was permitted under s. 10(1) of the Securities Act.

The respondent brought a motion to restrict Staff's use of documents that were also used in a parallel criminal proceeding against the respondent and his company.

The respondent argued that the documents should be subject to the screening process established in D.P. v Wagg.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Wagg process did not apply because Staff obtained the documents through its own investigation, rather than receiving them as Crown disclosure.

The Tribunal noted that applying Wagg would improperly impose unnecessary constraints on Staff.