Michael Lonergan Byers

The applicants purchased all shares of Stuart Investment Management Ltd. from the respondents pursuant to a Share Purchase Agreement.

Post-closing, the applicants discovered unpaid legal invoices from an ongoing regulatory investigation and faced a wrongful dismissal claim from a retained employee.

The applicants sought indemnification for these liabilities under the agreement, while the respondents cross-applied for unpaid rent under a sublease.

The court held that the respondents must indemnify the applicants for the undisclosed legal invoices, but not for the wrongful dismissal claim, which arose from the applicants' post-closing actions.

The court also found the individual respondent was not personally liable and dismissed the cross-application for rent due to lack of privity.

The applicants purchased all shares of Stuart Investment Management Ltd. from the respondents pursuant to a Share Purchase Agreement.

Post-closing, the applicants discovered unpaid legal invoices from an ongoing regulatory investigation and faced a wrongful dismissal claim from a retained employee.

The applicants sought indemnification for these liabilities under the agreement, while the respondents cross-applied for unpaid rent under a sublease.

The court held that the respondents must indemnify the applicants for the undisclosed legal invoices, but not for the wrongful dismissal claim, which arose from the applicants' post-closing actions.

The court also found the individual respondent was not personally liable and dismissed the cross-application for rent due to lack of privity.

In CCAA proceedings involving a payday lending enterprise, class members in Ontario consumer class actions moved for approval of three settlement agreements forming part of a broader global resolution of litigation involving the debtor companies, their directors and officers, and related parties.

The settlements resolved certain class claims and partially resolved a third‑party lender claim, providing more than $10 million in recovery with potential participation in future litigation proceeds.

The court applied established settlement approval factors including likelihood of success, litigation risks, counsel recommendations, absence of objections, and arm’s‑length negotiations.

The court concluded that the settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class and the restructuring process.

The Ad Hoc Committee of Purchasers of the Applicants' Securities moved for approval of a settlement agreement and plan of allocation in the context of CCAA proceedings involving Cash Store Financial Services and related entities.

The settlement provided for a payment of $13,779,167 by the defendants to resolve allegations of false and misleading statements regarding financial results.

The court approved the settlement and the associated third-party releases, finding them fair, reasonable, and consistent with the purpose of the CCAA.

The motion to approve the plan of allocation was adjourned on consent.

The respondent investment dealer terminated the contracts of four sales agents when it closed its Thunder Bay office.

The respondent sued for repayment of transition loans that became due upon termination.

The appellants defended the action, claiming misrepresentation by omission regarding the office closure and equitable set-off.

The motion judge granted summary judgment against two of the appellants.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in fact and law, and that a fair and just determination required a trial of all claims and counterclaims together to avoid inconsistent verdicts.