Nigel Campbell

An appeal of a wrongful dismissal action where the trial judge found just cause for termination based on three incidents of misconduct by a Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer.

The incidents involved: (1) failure to disclose a land flip transaction where the controlling shareholder's group profited $6.5 million; (2) failure to disclose warrant redemption profits to independent directors; and (3) involvement in a tax scheme to mislead the Canada Revenue Agency.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in applying the McKinley test, misinterpreted Advanced Realty and Hodgkinson, and failed to consider condonation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, confirming that fiduciaries owe a duty to disclose conflicts of interest and misappropriation of corporate opportunities.

Two former employees of MD Physician Services Inc. and MD Management Limited appealed a trial judgment finding that they breached non-solicitation agreements with their former employer.

The employees left MD in 2013 to join RBC Dominion Securities Inc., a competitor, and immediately began contacting MD's clients from memory to solicit their business.

The appellants argued the non-solicitation clause was ambiguous and unenforceable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding the clause was clear and reasonable, and that the employees' conduct constituted a breach of the non-solicitation agreement.

Following a successful defence in a wrongful dismissal trial, the defendant sought costs of approximately $750,000.

The plaintiff argued for $500,000.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, noting that while the electronic trial was efficient, both sides engaged in overkill and over-representation.

The court reduced the defendant's claimed fees slightly and awarded costs of $725,651.30 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs, MD Physician Services Inc. and MD Management Limited, sued former employees Duane Wisniewski and Joy Sleeth, and their new employer RBC Dominion Securities Inc., for breach of non-solicitation agreements and confidentiality obligations.

The court found the non-solicitation agreements enforceable, rejecting arguments of lack of consideration, non est factum, ambiguity, vagueness, and unreasonableness.

The court also found that Wisniewski and Sleeth breached these agreements by actively soliciting former clients, despite their claims of merely informing them of their new employment.

RBC Dominion Securities Inc. was found vicariously liable for these breaches.

While a technical breach of confidentiality occurred, it was deemed de minimis and not to attract damages.

The trial was limited to liability, with damages to be addressed later.

The plaintiff, a former Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of Royal Group, Inc., sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming approximately $6.6 million in damages.

The defendant employer argued cause for dismissal based on the plaintiff's involvement in two instances of serious misconduct: the "Vaughan West land flip" and the misappropriation of a "Premdor warrant." Both involved the plaintiff's participation in schemes where senior officers, including himself, made secret profits at the corporation's expense and failed to disclose these conflicts of interest to the independent board of directors.

The court found that the plaintiff, as a fiduciary and senior employee, breached his duties of loyalty, honesty, candour, and fidelity by facilitating the usurpation of corporate opportunities, taking corporate funds without proper authority, and actively participating in deceptive practices, including back-dating documents for tax purposes.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, concluding that his conduct constituted just cause for summary dismissal, emphasizing the strictness of fiduciary duties in public corporations.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The underlying motion judge had found a triable issue regarding whether fraudulent concealment prevented the moving party from relying on the limitations period in the Trustee Act.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the moving party failed to establish conflicting case law or an issue of public importance that went beyond the interests of the immediate parties.

The defendant First Associates Investments Inc. moved for summary judgment to dismiss an action brought by the estate trustee of Nancy Wagg, arguing the claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period under section 38(3) of the Trustee Act.

The action alleged breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty related to unsuitable investments made by Nancy Wagg's son-in-law, Todd Monaghan, an investment advisor and officer of First Associates.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while section 38(1) of the Trustee Act applies to claims for pure economic loss, there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the application of the fraudulent concealment doctrine.

Specifically, triable issues existed concerning whether Monaghan's conduct was unconscionable, First Associates' vicarious liability, and whether critical information about the investments was concealed from Nancy Wagg or her subsequent estate trustees.

Following dismissal of an employee’s action alleging multiple breaches of an employment agreement, the employer sought costs of the action.

The employer relied on earlier offers to settle and argued it should receive substantial indemnity costs after the first refused offer.

The court held that elevated costs outside Rule 49.10 require reprehensible or egregious conduct by the opposing party.

Finding no such conduct and noting the action was hard fought but not frivolous, the court declined substantial indemnity costs and instead awarded a reduced amount under Rule 57.01.

The Court addressed three securities class action appeals on whether limitation periods for statutory secondary-market misrepresentation claims are suspended before leave is granted, and on related nunc pro tunc, special circumstances, leave-threshold, and certification issues.

The CIBC and IMAX appeals were dismissed, while the Celestica appeal was allowed.

The plaintiff, a successful retail stockbroker, sued his former employer for breach of contract, alleging he was owed a 10% finder's fee on several large corporate finance transactions under an April 11, 2006 agreement.

The court found that the agreement was exclusively a retail document and did not apply to transactions involving the employer's Capital Markets group.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claims for negligent overpayment of his assistant, unjust enrichment, bad faith, and entitlement to unvested deferred stock units.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for certification of a class proceeding and for leave to proceed with statutory claims for misrepresentation under the Securities Act against Celestica Inc. and its former executives.

The plaintiffs alleged misrepresentations regarding a 2005 restructuring, inventory, revenue, and GAAP compliance.

The court granted leave and certified the class action solely with respect to the alleged misrepresentations about the 2005 restructuring, finding a reasonable possibility of success.

Leave and certification were denied for the inventory, revenue, and GAAP claims due to a lack of evidentiary foundation.

The court also declined to certify the common law negligent misrepresentation claim, finding it did not satisfy the preferable procedure criterion.

Recognition proceedings were brought under the cross‑border insolvency provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act concerning a foreign main liquidation proceeding in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas.

Multiple parties asserted competing claims to approximately $4 million in assets held by a Canadian financial institution.

Motions were pending regarding whether a stay of proceedings should be lifted or modified to permit bankruptcy proceedings in Canada or enforcement of claimed interests.

The court held there was insufficient time to fully argue the issues and maintained the existing interim stay and related orders to preserve the status quo pending a full hearing.

The endorsement emphasized that the interim directions were not intended to interfere with the foreign main proceeding.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to amend a previously issued and entered order arising from a Rule 21 motion in a proposed securities class action.

The original order dismissed the defendants’ motion to strike claims under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act but failed to reflect the judge’s reasoning that the special circumstances doctrine permitted leave to be granted nunc pro tunc despite the expiry of the statutory limitation period.

The court held that the omission of this conclusion from the formal order was an oversight and that Rule 59.06(1) permits amendment where the order does not accurately express the court’s manifest intention as reflected in the reasons for decision.

The court rejected arguments that the requested amendment was premature or an improper reconsideration of the earlier ruling.

The order was amended to include the finding regarding the special circumstances doctrine.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' proposed class action statement of claim, arguing that the statutory cause of action under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act was statute-barred because the plaintiffs did not obtain leave before the expiry of the three-year limitation period.

The court held that the common law special circumstances doctrine applies to the limitation period in the Securities Act, giving the court jurisdiction to make an order nunc pro tunc granting leave.

The court found special circumstances existed because the defendants had known of the claims since 2007 and suffered no prejudice.

The motion to strike the statutory claims was dismissed, but the common law negligent misrepresentation claim was struck with leave to amend for failing to plead detrimental reliance.

The defendants and proposed defendants sought leave to appeal a motion judge's ruling on a Rule 21 motion, an order certifying the proceeding as a class proceeding, and an order granting the plaintiffs leave to commence an action under the Securities Act.

The court granted leave to appeal the Rule 21 motion in relation to the pleadings of negligence and negligent misrepresentation, noting that two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions created a correctness and conflict issue.

Consequently, leave to appeal the certification order was also granted.

Furthermore, the court granted the proposed defendants leave to appeal the order allowing proceedings against them under the Securities Act, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's determination that they were de facto officers of the Income Fund.