Terrence Liu

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Vermette J. dated December 15, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion.

As no costs outline was submitted, the court made no order as to costs.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a dismissed interlocutory injunction motion brought by the Applicants and a granted cross-motion for consolidation brought by the Respondents.

The Respondents, as successful parties, sought substantial indemnity costs, citing egregious conduct and reasonable settlement offers.

The Applicants argued for costs in the cause or partial indemnity, denying bad faith.

The court ordered costs payable forthwith on a partial indemnity basis, finding no reprehensible conduct warranting substantial indemnity and noting the limited compromise in the Respondents' settlement offers.

The quantum of costs claimed by the Respondents was reduced due to excessive hours, particularly for the consolidation motion.

The applicants brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction in an oppression application to preserve their alleged shareholdings in a startup company and restrict the respondents' use of corporate assets.

The respondents brought a cross-motion to convert the application into an action and consolidate it with their own action against the applicants.

The court dismissed the applicants' motion, finding they failed to establish a strong prima facie case for specific performance regarding the issuance of shares and failed to show irreparable harm.

The court granted the respondents' cross-motion, ordering the application to proceed as an action and be consolidated or heard together with the respondents' action, given the overlapping issues, disputed material facts, and need for discoveries.

The moving parties (defendants) brought a motion under Rule 21.01(3) to strike paragraphs from the plaintiff's statement of claim, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata and abuse of process due to a prior construction lien action.

The plaintiff had previously obtained a default judgment on a counterclaim in the lien action and now alleged the moving parties stripped the corporate defendant's assets to make it judgment proof.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues of fraud and asset stripping against the personal defendants were not and could not have been adjudicated in the prior lien action, as there was no judgment against the corporate defendant at that time.

The moving party, a former CFO of a company undergoing CCAA restructuring, sought a declaration that a court-approved settlement and release barred the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPAO) from commencing disciplinary proceedings against him.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the CPAO's regulatory proceedings regarding professional misconduct did not constitute a 'claim' under the CCAA, nor were they claims against him in his capacity as a director or officer.

Furthermore, the disciplinary proceedings did not fall within the definition of released claims in the settlement order, and the CPAO was not bound by the order as it had not received notice.

The appellant lawyer appealed an order dismissing his motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the respondents.

The Divisional Court found the motions judge's one-sentence endorsement lacked adequate reasons, preventing appellate review.

Exercising its jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act, the Divisional Court heard the motion on its merits.

The court found that the parties' counsel had reached a binding settlement agreement via email, agreeing on the essential terms of a $15,000 payment and a full and final release.

The respondents' subsequent refusal to sign the documents was an improper attempt to resile from the agreement.

The appeal was allowed and the settlement enforced.

The Ontario Securities Commission issued its decision on sanctions and costs following a merits decision that found the respondents contravened the Securities Act by engaging in insider trading and tipping.

The respondents included a mergers and acquisitions lawyer who instigated the tipping scheme and several investment advisors who traded on and further disseminated the material non-public information.

The Commission imposed 10-year trading bans, permanent or 10-year director and officer bans, and 10-year registration bans for the investment advisors.

The Commission also ordered disgorgement of profits totaling $84,698, administrative penalties totaling $2,150,000, and costs of $500,000 apportioned among the respondents based on their respective culpability and involvement in the proceedings.