Luisa Ritacca

The applicants, who lost $150 million investing in Concordia International Corp., applied for a Norwich Order against the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC).

They sought trading data and client identities to identify short-sellers they believed conspired to illegally manipulate Concordia's share price.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the applicants had a bona fide potential claim for civil conspiracy, they failed to satisfy the other criteria for a Norwich Order.

Specifically, IIROC's role as a regulator did not constitute being 'mixed up' in the wrongdoing, the applicants already had sufficient information to pursue claims, and balancing IIROC's regulatory duties and privacy interests against the applicants' interests favoured denying the order.

The applicant corporation sought the return of $144,050 in cash seized by police during a drug and money laundering investigation targeting its former director.

The applicant argued it was the lawful owner of the funds, which it claimed were a business float, and that the funds were not required for the pending criminal proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that it was the lawful owner of the funds, and that the funds were required as evidence for the upcoming preliminary inquiry and trial.

The applicant sought relief from forfeiture after its month‑to‑month commercial tenancy at the Ontario Food Terminal was terminated.

The tenant argued that the landlord lacked cause or a legitimate business reason for termination and that the notice failed to comply with the Commercial Tenancies Act.

The court held that the lease expressly permitted termination by either party on 30 days’ written notice and that the tenancy was properly terminated in accordance with both the agreement and the statute.

The court rejected the argument that the Ontario Food Terminal Board required cause or a legitimate business justification to exercise its contractual termination right.

Relief from forfeiture was therefore unavailable because the lease had been terminated pursuant to its terms rather than forfeited for breach.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Applicants (Hollinger Inc. et al.) sought approval of settlement agreements with their former auditors (KPMG) and lawyers (Torys).

The Non-Settling Defendants, including Conrad Black and David Radler, opposed the settlements, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and that the included third-party releases and bar orders would deprive them of procedural rights to discovery.

The court held it had jurisdiction under the CCAA to manage litigation as a corporate asset.

The court approved the Pierringer-style settlements, finding that the procedural rights of the Non-Settling Defendants could be adequately protected through active case management and the application of the principle of proportionality in discovery.

The defendants sought security for costs against non-resident plaintiffs in two related civil fraud actions involving failed investment schemes.

Following an appeal, the matter was remitted to reconsider whether the plaintiffs had a “good chance of success” on the merits, which could weigh against ordering security for costs.

The court reviewed extensive evidentiary allegations concerning the role of a law firm and its partner in facilitating investment transfers connected to the alleged fraud.

The court held that while the record raised genuine issues for trial, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a “good chance of success,” particularly regarding whether the defendants owed a duty of care to non-client investors or participated in the alleged fraud.

Security for costs was therefore ordered on the same terms previously imposed.

The plaintiffs appealed an order of a case management master requiring them to post additional security for costs in complex civil litigation.

The plaintiffs were non-residents of Ontario and did not claim impecuniosity, but argued that the strength of their claims justified denying security for costs.

The court held that the master applied the wrong legal standard by requiring the plaintiffs to show an "overwhelming likelihood of success" rather than the correct standard of a "good chance of success" when assessing the merits under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Because this constituted an error of law, the appeal was allowed in part and the matter was remitted to the case management master for reconsideration using the proper standard.