Mark Edward Bailey

The Ontario Securities Commission sought the appointment of a receiver over the assets of Traders Global Group Inc. and related entities based on allegations of fraud and unregistered securities trading.

The receiver was appointed in January 2024.

More than nineteen months later, the respondents brought a motion to discharge the receiver, and the receiver sought directions regarding disclosure of data to the Commission.

The court found that significant changes in circumstances had occurred since the appointment, including the dismissal of related U.S. proceedings due to misconduct by CFTC staff whose evidence had supported the receivership appointment, the discovery of a Nova Scotia decision that undermined the novelty of the Commission's legal theory, and substantial delay in the investigation without issuance of an Application for Enforcement Proceeding.

The court granted the respondents' alternative request to vary the appointment order, reducing the frozen assets from tens of millions to $10 million in escrow, while retaining the receiver to administer the escrow and act as intermediary for data disclosure.

The court also confirmed the receiver's authority to share non-privileged data with the Commission under the appointment order.

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) brought a motion seeking an order for the issuance of Letters of Request in Commissions under section 152 of the Securities Act.

The OSC required evidence from two individuals, one residing in British Columbia and one in Massachusetts, USA, for a proceeding before the Capital Markets Tribunal concerning Bridging Finance Inc. and its respondents.

The respondents did not oppose the motion.

The court granted the order, finding that the proposed witnesses had relevant evidence and that the Letters of Request and Commissions accorded with Rule 34.07(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellants appealed from the Court of Appeal's reversal of the CCAA court's decision regarding the priority of pension plan wind-up deficiency claims over court-ordered DIP financing charges.

The majority held that wind-up deficiencies under s. 75(1)(b) of the Pension Benefits Act were subject to a statutory deemed trust under s. 57(4), but that the deemed trust was superseded by the DIP charge by virtue of the doctrine of federal paramountcy.

The majority further held that while the employer-administrator breached its fiduciary duty by failing to ensure the pension plan beneficiaries had adequate notice and representation in the CCAA proceedings, a constructive trust was not an appropriate remedy because the breach did not result in an identifiable asset that it would be unjust for the wrongdoer to retain.