Marvin Joel Huberman

The appellant appealed an order regarding the adequacy of pleadings and whether the respondent was immune from suit.

The Court of Appeal noted that pending judicial review applications in the Divisional Court raised many of the same procedural errors alleged in the pleadings.

The Court adjourned the appeal to await the Divisional Court's decision, as it could impact whether the appellant's pleading could survive based on issue estoppel or res judicata.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Securities Commission decision ordering the disclosure of his compelled evidence to co-respondents in a regulatory proceeding.

The applicant argued the evidence was privileged based on an undertaking from Commission staff and that the Charter applied due to the risk of quasi-criminal proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission's interpretation of the undertaking was reasonable and that the Charter did not apply to the administrative proceeding.

The appellants appealed an order regarding an arbitration agreement.

The Court of Appeal found that the record did not clearly show the arbitration agreement was incapable of performance.

The court varied the motion judge's order, referring the matter back to the Crown Heights Beth Din to proceed with the arbitration on a fixed timetable or clearly indicate its refusal to deal with the matter.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.