Nabila Abdul Malik

The Crown appealed the acquittal of Damodar Arapakota on a charge of bribing a foreign public official contrary to section 3(1)(a) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA).

The respondent had paid for a family vacation in Orlando, Florida for a Botswana government official in exchange for letters confirming the government's intention to award a contract to the respondent's company.

The trial judge acquitted the respondent, finding that the Crown had failed to prove that the respondent received a material business advantage in return for the trip and that there was insufficient nexus between the trip and the letters.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding that while the trial judge erred in requiring proof of a specific act or omission, this error did not affect the outcome because the trial judge correctly found that the respondent received no meaningful business advantage.

Justice Monahan dissented, arguing that the trial judge's interpretation of "as consideration for" was unduly narrow and that the acquittal should be set aside for a new trial.

This is an appeal from a Divisional Court decision that granted judicial review, quashing an administrative decision and a request for bids related to the procurement of identification cards.

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) required card stock to be produced in Canada, which Thales DIS Canada Inc. (Thales) challenged as discriminatory under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).

The Divisional Court found the MTO's decision and request for bids unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court misapplied the reasonableness standard of review by conducting a de novo assessment instead of focusing on the administrative decision-maker's reasons.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the Director's decision was reasonable and that the request for bids was not separately subject to judicial review given the existence of an adequate internal dispute resolution process.

The Applicant sought recognition and enforcement of an international arbitration award against the Respondent.

The Respondent opposed, arguing the Applicant was not a legal entity and lacked standing, and moved to dismiss or stay the application.

The Applicant brought a cross-motion to amend its name in the title of proceedings.

The court granted the Applicant's motion to amend its name, finding that the use of a shorter name in the commercial agreement was permissible under Luxembourg law and that the Applicant was the correct award recipient.

The Respondent's motion to dismiss or stay was dismissed.

The court then granted the Applicant's request to recognize the arbitration award, rejecting the Respondent's arguments regarding estoppel and the arbitrator's impartiality, noting that the impartiality challenge had already been unsuccessfully litigated before the arbitration administrator.

The accused, Damodar Arapakota, was charged under s. 3(1)(a) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA) for allegedly providing a material benefit (a US trip valued at approximately $20,000) to a Botswanan public official, Dr. Omponye Coach Kereteletswe, as consideration for official acts to obtain a business advantage for his company, Imex Systems Inc. The Crown argued the trip was consideration for letters confirming a contract and its value.

The defence contended the trip was for convenience and partially reimbursed, and the letters did not provide a material business advantage.

The court found that while a material benefit was conferred, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the benefit was "as consideration for" the letters (lacking a quid pro quo) or that the letters provided a material "advantage in business" as required by the CFPOA.

The accused was found not guilty.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of an urgent injunction application.

The court considered three hearings: the initial injunction application, a hearing regarding the respondent's breach of undertaking, and a hearing requested by the respondent to vary an interim order.

The injunction was dismissed due to the applicant's failure to provide an undertaking as to damages.

The court awarded costs to the respondent for the initial injunction hearing and for responding to the applicant's post-decision attempt to provide the undertaking, but denied costs for the hearings related to the undertaking breach and the failed attempt to vary the interim order, finding them unnecessary.

The court also assessed the reasonableness of the respondent's claimed legal hours and hourly rates.

The applicant, Cash Cloud Inc., sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent, BitAccess Inc., from terminating a Master Purchase Agreement, deactivating cloud-based software used for cryptocurrency kiosks, and deleting customer data.

The court found it had jurisdiction to grant interim relief despite a mandatory arbitration clause.

The court granted a 60-day order preserving the customer data to allow the applicant to download it.

However, the court dismissed the injunction to restrain the software deactivation because the applicant failed to provide the mandatory undertaking as to damages required by Rule 40.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims for oppression.

The plaintiffs, former minority shareholders, alleged that the defendants misappropriated corporate assets and sold shares below true value.

The court struck the claims against the Murison Family Trust with leave to amend, as a trust is not a legal entity.

The claims against 2123388 Ontario Inc. and Exia Biomedical Inc. were struck without leave to amend, as 212 lacked the capacity to oppress and the claims against Exia belonged to the corporation and required a derivative action.

The claim against Obotics Inc. was struck with leave to amend, as no material facts of wrongful conduct were pleaded.