Mary L. Biggar

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an 86-year-old accused charged with manslaughter who suffers from progressive dementia.

The Board found the accused permanently unfit to stand trial, as she was unable to understand the proceedings or communicate with counsel.

Relying on expert evidence that her mobility had decreased and she had exhibited no aggressive behaviour for over a year, the Board concluded she no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Board recommended the matter be returned to court to determine whether a stay of proceedings should be ordered.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an 86-year-old accused who was previously found unfit to stand trial on a charge of manslaughter.

The accused suffers from progressive dementia and resides in a behavioural support unit at a long-term care facility.

Based on the hospital report and the testimony of her treating psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused remains globally unfit to stand trial and continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to her history of aggressivity.

The Board ordered the continuation of her conditional discharge, finding it to be the least onerous and least restrictive disposition that manages the risk while meeting her mental health and cultural needs.

A judgment creditor brought a motion to appoint a receiver in aid of execution after the debtor transferred assets to his spouse and related corporation and made an assignment in bankruptcy.

The debtor sought to discharge a certificate of pending litigation registered against the matrimonial home to facilitate refinancing intended to satisfy the judgment.

The court held that the debtor’s conduct, including fraudulent conveyances and repeated attempts to hinder collection, created special circumstances rendering ordinary execution methods ineffective.

The appointment of a receiver was found just and convenient under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The request to discharge the certificate of pending litigation was denied as premature pending agreement or determination of the full amount owed.

Following success on a summary judgment motion in a fraudulent conveyance action, the self-represented plaintiff sought costs for the litigation.

The court reviewed principles governing costs awards to self-represented litigants, noting that such parties are not compensated as though they retained counsel but may recover a reasonable allowance for proven loss of opportunity cost.

Evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff’s professional income declined due to time spent conducting the litigation.

Applying fairness and proportionality principles, the court awarded a reduced allowance for the plaintiff’s time plus supported disbursements.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to void two transfers made by her former business partner to his wife and his wife's company.

The defendant had misappropriated funds from their ATM business and subsequently transferred his interest in the family residence and the business.

The court found that the transfers exhibited several badges of fraud and were made with the intent to defeat creditors, even though the plaintiff was not a creditor at the time of the first transfer.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the transfers were declared void.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment after goods worth $263,520.00 were stolen while in the defendant carrier’s possession during transport from Toronto to Calgary.

The central dispute was whether the value of the consignment had been declared on the face of the contract of carriage so as to avoid the regulatory limitation of liability.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and concluded that the contract of carriage was not limited to the bill of lading, but also included oral representations and the invoice referenced on the signed bill of lading.

Because the invoice showing the full value formed part of the contract of carriage and was referenced on its face, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the full value, less any amount already paid, with interest.

Following a civil contempt conviction and the imposition of a conditional sentence of imprisonment with probation, the court addressed allegations that the contemnor had breached the conditional sentence order.

The court considered the appropriate procedure for dealing with alleged breaches of conditional sentences imposed for civil contempt.

It held that a breach constitutes a fresh contempt that may be pursued through a motion supported by evidence under Rule 60.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the Criminal Code conditional sentence breach framework may provide guidance for available remedies, the court held that the breach must still be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in civil contempt proceedings.

The court outlined procedural options, including a fresh contempt motion or investigation by the conditional sentence supervisor.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's finding of contempt and the determination of a fit sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decisions, noting the reasons were clear and correct.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Supplementary endorsement addressing unresolved questions arising from a refusals and undertakings motion following examinations for discovery in a civil action.

The court clarified and completed earlier rulings by issuing directions regarding specific questions and document production obligations.

The respondent was ordered to provide various financial records, identification details, correspondence with third parties, and explanations of efforts to obtain certain documents within specified timelines.

Some requests were declined.

The endorsement also confirmed that any ordered production of correspondence excludes solicitor‑client privileged material.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents engaged in illegal trading and distribution of securities in a multi-jurisdictional scheme, the Commission held a sanctions and costs hearing.

The corporate respondents had been petitioned into bankruptcy.

The Commission determined that while the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act did not prevent it from exercising its public interest jurisdiction, it would restrict monetary orders to the individual respondents to avoid depleting assets available for investors.

The Commission ordered permanent market bans against the individual respondents, noting their egregious conduct, offshore transfer of funds, and one respondent's prior disciplinary history.

Each individual respondent was ordered to pay a $200,000 administrative penalty and disgorge funds they personally obtained or transferred offshore.

The individual respondents were also ordered to pay $117,441.51 in costs.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the corporate and individual respondents engaged in unregistered trading and illegal distributions of securities in relation to purported biofuels technology companies.

The Commission found that the respondents acted as market intermediaries whose primary business was raising capital, precluding reliance on the accredited investor exemption.

The individual respondents engaged in acts in furtherance of trades by signing treasury directions, opening bank accounts, and maintaining misleading websites.

The Commission also affirmed its jurisdiction over the matter despite the use of offshore entities, finding a substantial connection to Ontario.

The respondents were found to have breached sections 25 and 53 of the Securities Act and acted contrary to the public interest.

The applicants sought to file a Notice of Hearing under s. 127 of the Securities Act to reprimand Commission Staff and rectify alleged past non-compliance related to the delayed issuance of a prospectus receipt.

The Secretary returned the draft notice, stating only Staff could bring a s. 127 hearing.

The applicants moved for directions.

The Commission declined to decide whether a third party could ever seek a s. 127 hearing, finding that even if they could, the relief sought here was punitive and retrospective.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Asbestos, the Commission held that s. 127 is a regulatory provision intended to be preventive and prospective, not to remedy alleged past misconduct or harm to private parties.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) that upheld the Investment Dealers Association of Canada's (IDA) disciplinary actions against them.

The IDA had fined the appellants and terminated their membership for failing to provide documents during an investigation into alleged principal trading in an error account.

The appellants argued the IDA lacked jurisdiction, its by-laws violated the Charter, and the investigation was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding the IDA is not a government entity subject to the Charter, its investigative powers are valid under the regulatory scheme, and its disciplinary process and penalties were reasonable.

The appellant mortgage broker appealed the trial judge's dismissal of its action against the respondents for unpaid commissions.

The appellant argued the respondents should be liable for breach of contract, oppression, or as principals by piercing the corporate veil.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's refusal to award them costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's refusal to pierce the corporate veil or find oppression in what was an ordinary breach of contract by the corporate defendant.

The cross-appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge's decision to deprive the successful respondents of costs due to their borderline dishonest conduct was justified.

The appellant appealed an order of the motions judge granting summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's conclusion that there was no genuine issue for trial.

Costs were fixed at $5,000.