Michael Statham

The plaintiffs invested in a land development project in Brampton promoted by the defendants.

The defendants promised to develop the property into a subdivision and deliver serviced lots to the investors.

However, the defendants never developed the property, secretly used project funds to pay for their personal expenses, and ultimately sold the undeveloped land to a third-party developer for over $15.3 million.

The plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, fraud, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the actions, finding that the defendants had engaged in a deliberate pattern of deceptive and self-serving misconduct.

The court imposed a constructive trust and awarded the plaintiffs a pro-rata share of the sale proceeds based on their capital contributions, totaling over $10.6 million, plus $150,000 in punitive damages.

The applicant, a secured creditor, applied to adjudge the respondent bankrupt and sought a declaration that its perfected security interest under the Personal Property Security Act took priority over class counsel's first charge under the Class Proceedings Act regarding a $3 million costs award.

The court adjudged the respondent bankrupt and found the costs award was the respondent's property.

However, the court held that the first charge under the Class Proceedings Act is essentially a solicitor's lien, which is exempt from the Personal Property Security Act.

Therefore, class counsel's charge takes priority over the applicant's secured claim.

Following dismissal of the defendants’ motion for leave to appeal orders made in a class proceeding, the successful plaintiff sought costs exceeding $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the complexity of the class action and the substantial materials filed but found the hourly rates claimed by counsel excessive.

The court also reduced photocopying disbursements due to unnecessary duplication.

The plaintiff was awarded reduced costs reflecting reasonable fees and adjusted disbursements.

A class action brought by automobile dealers challenged a manufacturer’s 2009 wind‑down agreements issued during the global financial crisis, alleging breaches of the statutory duty of fair dealing, disclosure obligations, and the right of association under franchise legislation.

The court held the manufacturer did not breach its contractual or statutory obligations in implementing the dealer reduction plan or issuing the agreements under urgent restructuring circumstances.

However, the law firm advising the dealer group was found to have breached fiduciary duties, contractual duties, and the standard of care by acting despite conflicts of interest and failing to properly advise the dealers during the restructuring process.

The court concluded that the lawyers’ misconduct deprived the dealers of a real opportunity to negotiate improved termination compensation.

Aggregate damages were therefore awarded for loss of that negotiation opportunity.

The plaintiff sought clarification of a prior ruling on a motion for leave to commence a statutory cause of action for secondary market misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act.

The earlier decision granted leave for some alleged misrepresentations but dismissed others, including allegations relating to revenue recognition in the issuer’s 2008 financial statements.

The parties requested clarification regarding whether the alleged misrepresentation in the issuer’s October 14, 2009 Management’s Discussion and Analysis concerning revenue recognition had been determined.

The court held that although there was likely an internal control deficiency relating to revenue recognition at the time of the MD&A, there was no evidence that the deficiency, standing alone, was material.

Leave was therefore refused and the motion dismissed with respect to that alleged misrepresentation.

A shareholder sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act to commence a statutory secondary market misrepresentation action under s. 138.3 against a solar energy company and two of its officers.

The alleged misrepresentations concerned financial statements, internal control disclosures, and statements incorporated into a prospectus supplement.

The court held that the plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable possibility of success regarding alleged misrepresentations in the issuer’s original Q4 2009 financial statements and the October 2009 prospectus supplement, including related press releases and conference calls.

However, the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient evidence of misrepresentation in earlier 2009 interim financial statements or the 2008 revenue recognition disclosure.

Leave was granted in part and refused in part.