Neil G. Wilson

Investors sought the appointment of an investigative receiver over the defendant’s assets after transferring $3 million for foreign currency trading and alleging misappropriation and fraud when funds were not returned.

The defendant opposed the request and moved to set aside a default judgment previously granted against him.

The court held that although the defendant had not fully explained what happened to all funds during examinations and productions, the extraordinary remedy of appointing an investigative receiver before trial was not justified.

Existing discovery mechanisms and potential procedural sanctions were sufficient to address any non‑compliance.

The default judgment was set aside on consent, and the court directed the action to proceed to an expedited hybrid trial to determine liability and the disposition of the invested funds.

In a CCAA proceeding, the applicants challenged the reasonableness of legal fees charged by counsel to their secured lender after the applicants were required to pay those fees as part of the secured debt under an initial order.

The issue on this motion was whether the dispute over the reasonableness of the fees should be determined by an assessment officer through a solicitor-client assessment or by a judge of the Commercial List.

The court held that because the initial order made the fees part of the costs of the CCAA proceeding, jurisdiction properly lay with the Commercial List court absent exceptional circumstances.

The court emphasized the Commercial List’s expertise in supervising professional fees in insolvency matters and concerns about proportionality and efficiency if the matter proceeded through a lengthy assessment process.

The court ordered that the issue of the reasonableness of the fees be determined by a judge of the Commercial List following a case conference process to narrow the issues.

The defendant, Steven Blondin, pleaded guilty to 112 charges of failing to comply with Orders to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Blondin was the sole director of six Ontario corporations that failed to pay wages totalling approximately $142,000 to 61 employees between March 2007 and October 2009.

The court imposed a fine of $40,000 against Blondin personally and $240,000 against his six corporations collectively, along with a custodial sentence of three months to be served concurrently.

Restitution orders were issued separately.

The defendant's request for house arrest as an alternative to imprisonment was denied as the Provincial Offences Act does not provide for conditional sentences.

The court provided further directions regarding a court-ordered election for a not-for-profit corporation.

The issue was whether 18 individuals whose memberships had been suspended or terminated were eligible to vote as 'regular members' if they operated convenience stores as franchisees rather than independent owners.

The court found that the corporation's Articles did not exclude franchisee store operators from regular membership, provided they contributed to the generation of profits for the corporation.

The court ordered that the 18 individuals could vote if they submitted an affidavit confirming their contribution to the corporation's profits.

A not‑for‑profit corporate governance dispute led to court‑ordered elections for officers and directors of an association.

On a motion for directions, the court clarified the powers of court‑appointed election supervisors, determined the positions to be filled, and resolved several disputes about membership eligibility, voting procedures, and governance rules.

The court held that previous confirmations of the president and vice‑presidents were procedurally invalid due to lack of quorum and improper notice.

Suspensions or terminations of certain members were set aside due to lack of procedural fairness.

The court issued detailed directions governing the conduct of the upcoming elections, including supervision authority, quorum rules, and control over the association’s website during the election process.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal regarding a denial of access to information by the Clerk of the Privy Council.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the Federal Court of Appeal, which found the Clerk was justified in denying access.

However, the Court awarded costs to the appellant throughout.

The Minister referred a request to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 139 of the Labour Relations Act to amend an employer bargaining agency designation.

The applicant, previously an unincorporated association, incorporated to facilitate normal business transactions and sought to have the designation amended to reflect its new corporate status.

The Board found that the incorporated association had the full capacity to function as a designated employer bargaining agency and that the amendment would not adversely affect collective bargaining in the construction industry.

The Board advised the Minister to accede to the application.