Raymond James Ltd. v. Noronha

Ontario Reports Ontario Superior Court of Justice Perell J. August 23, 2018 143 O.R. (3d) 116 | 2018 ONSC 4997

Case Summary

Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Plaintiff investment dealer terminating agency agreement with defendant investment advisor after learning that defendant was trading in off-book investments and [page117] contravening plaintiff's compliance manual — Balance of forgivable loan to defendant becoming due under agency agreement upon termination — Plaintiff suing for outstanding balance — Defendant counterclaiming for damages for wrongful termination and breach of duty of good faith — Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada ("IIROC") finding that defendant had contravened IIROC dealer member rules — No genuine issue for trial existing — Plaintiff moving successfully for summary judgment allowing claim and dismissing counterclaim.

The defendant was an investment adviser and a sales agent of the plaintiff investment dealer under an agency agreement. The plaintiff terminated the agreement after learning that the defendant was trading in off-book investments and that he was using his personal e-mail address to carry on business, which suggested that he was attempting to conceal his activities, in contravention of the plaintiff's compliance manual and its policy relating to the use of computer systems. Under the terms of the agency agreement, the balance of a forgivable loan to the defendant became due upon an "event of default", which included the termination of the agreement for any reason. The plaintiff sued to recover the outstanding balance. The defendant counterclaimed for damages for wrongful termination and breach of a duty of good faith. The Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada ("IIROC") investigated the defendant's activities and found that he had contravened IIROC dealer member rules by recommending and facilitating investments to clients that were conducted off the books and without the plaintiff's consent, accepting remuneration from persons other than the plaintiff through his spouse for securities-related matters, failing to disclose a conflict of interest to the plaintiff and his clients, and deleting e-mail records. The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment allowing its claim and dismissing the counterclaim.

Held, the motion should be granted.

There was no genuine issue requiring a trial of the claim or the counterclaim. As a straightforward matter of contract enforcement, the unforgiven portion of the loan became due when the agency agreement was terminated. There was no merit to the defendant's submission that the plaintiff's termination of the agency agreement was a pretence to misappropriate his book of business and was a breach of a duty of good faith. The termination was for various events of default, and the defendant's book of business was lost through his being banned for life from being an investment dealer by the IIROC. The defendant could not make out a case that he was wrongfully terminated or that the plaintiff misappropriated his book of business even without regard to the findings of the IIROC disciplinary panel.

Cases Referred To

Rules and Regulations Referred To

Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rules 20, 20.04(2)(a), (2.1), (2.2)

MOTION by the plaintiff for summary judgment.

Gavin J. Tighe and Scott K. Gfeller, for plaintiff. Evan L. Tingley, for defendant.

PERELL J. : —

A. Introduction

[1] Jayanth ("Jay") Noronha was an investment adviser, who was a sales agent of Raymond James Ltd. ("RJL") under an agency agreement. The agency relationship ended, and RJL sued Mr. Noronha for repayment of a forgivable loan of which the outstanding balance was $298,783.62. Mr. Noronha counterclaimed for $2.0 million for wrongful termination and breach of a duty of good faith.

[2] RJL now moves for a summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim and granting it judgment of $298,783.62 plus prejudgment interest -- the Royal Bank of Canada's commercial prime interest rate plus 2.5 per cent per annum, calculated and compounded monthly, as provided for in Schedule "D" of the agency agreement.

B. Facts

[3] RJL is an investment dealer. It is a member of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada ("IIROC"), which the Ontario Securities Commission authorizes to regulate [page119] broker-dealers and other individual registrants in regard to the trading of securities.

[4] In Ontario and across Canada, licensing by IIROC is a statutory requirement for investment dealers to trade in securities.

[5] In 2011, Mr. Noronha was a licensed investment dealer at Dundee Wealth Management. Mr. Noronha was a successful investment advisor, and he was making over $1.0 million per year in commissions. He managed approximately $100 million of client assets.

[6] In the fall of 2011, Mr. Noronha agreed to leave Dundee Wealth Management to become a sales agent for RJL.

[7] On September 1, 2011, RJL and Mr. Noronha entered into the agency agreement. Under the agency agreement, Mr. Noronha agreed to become a sales agent for RJL.

[8] Under art. 2.2 of the agency agreement, Mr. Noronha agreed, among other things, to comply with RJL's compliance manual. He also agreed to adhere to IIROC Rules.

[9] Under art. 2.7 of the agency agreement, Mr. Noronha agreed to be responsible for the "actions and activities" of his sub-agent associates, one of whom was Michelle Tatham. Mr. Noronha was responsible for and required to pay, among other things, all legal defence costs and expenses should a client or former client of the associate initiate a complaint, claim, action or other proceeding against RJL and Mr. Noronha and his sub-agents.

[10] Articles 2.8 and 2.16 of the agency agreement provided that Mr. Noronha was responsible for, among other things, the legal defence costs of RJL and that he was responsible to indemnify and hold RJL harmless in connection with any claims resulting directly or indirectly, or as a result of, among other things, any breach of the agency agreement or any alleged breach of contract, duty of care or fiduciary or other statutory duty.

[11] Under Schedule "D" of the agency agreement, RJL agreed to provide Mr. Noronha with a $880,000 loan. The loan was based on the value of Mr. Noronha's book of business at Dundee Wealth Management that was to be transferred to RJL.

[12] Under Schedule "D" of the agency agreement, RJL agreed that one-seventh (1/7) of the principal amount of the loan was forgivable on each anniversary of the initial advance until the loan was fully forgiven on the seventh anniversary of the advance, provided that Mr. Noronha fulfilled all requirements of the agency agreement and was not in default of the agency agreement.

[13] Section 2 of Part C of Schedule "D" stated:

Provided that the Agent has fulfilled all of the requirements of the Agency Agreement and no Default (as hereinafter defined) pursuant to this Schedule [page120] has occurred, the Dealer shall forgive one seventh (1/7) of the principal amount of each loan annually on each anniversary of the initial advance of each of such loans until each such loan has been fully forgiven. Any portion of each loan which is forgiven shall no longer be owing by the Agent to the Dealer and the principal amount of each such loan outstanding shall be reduced by the amount of the Loan which is forgiven.

[14] Section 4 of Schedule "D" stated:

In the event of the death of the Agent, provided the clients serviced by the Agent transfer to another of the Dealer's registrants pursuant to the Agent's succession plan and such clients remain clients with the Dealer (the "Forgiveness Event"), any principal amounts of the loans outstanding at that time shall be forgiven.

[15] The agency agreement provided that if the agreement was terminated, then the outstanding and unforgiveable balance of the loan was immediately due and payable to RJL. Sections 5 and 6 of Part C of Schedule "D" and art. 3.3 of the agency agreement, which is also incorporated by reference into section 6 of Part C of Schedule "D", state:

The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall constitute an event of default ("Default") by the Agent of any of the loans outstanding at the time of such Default: (a) the termination of the Agency Agreement for any reason, including but not limited to: (i) the resignation or departure as a registrant with the Dealer, with or without providing notice; (ii) the termination of the Agent's registration by the Dealer with or without cause; and (iii) the Agent's breach of the Agency Agreement. (b) the occurrence of an event that renders the Agent ineligible for registration with the regulatory authorities having jurisdiction.
In the event of a Default prior to the full forgiveness of any of the loans, the then outstanding balance of the loans which has not been forgiven at the date of Default, costs and all moneys owing by the Agent to the Dealer and all liabilities of the Agent hereunder shall become immediately due and payable, without presentment, demand, protest or other notice of any kind to the Agent, all of which are hereby expressly waived, and shall constitute a debt due and owing to the Dealer by the Agent (such obligations including interest thereon in accordance with the terms herein are referred to as the "Obligations"). The Dealer shall be able to rely on the indemnity and reimbursement and set-off provisions under sections 2.16 and 3.3 of this Agency Agreement in the collection of any debts due and owing to the Dealer including, but not limited to, the loans. 3.3 In the event that any amounts are paid by the Dealer for which the Agent is responsible under this Agreement or in respect of which the Agent has agreed to indemnify the Dealer, the Agent agrees that the Agent will be indebted to the Dealer for such amounts. The Agent further agrees that the Dealer may set-off any such amounts owing to the Dealer against any amount owing by the Dealer to this Agent pursuant to this Agreement. The Dealer may, if require by its governing Regulators, assume the direct [page121] financial obligations for payment of certain expenses of the Agent. The Agent agrees that any such expenses are a debt owing by the Agent to the Dealer and must be repaid by the Agent to the Dealer.

[16] The agency agreement provided for co-operation with respect to the transfer of clients if there was a termination. Section 5.5(d) of the agency agreement stated:

Upon termination of this Agreement for any reason whatsoever, (d) the Dealer will cooperate with the Agent with respect to the transfer of Clients provided that such Clients have consented or otherwise authorized such transfer, and for a period of six months after such termination, the Dealer will not without the consent of the Agent solicit any investment or financial services business from such Clients[.]

[17] In 2013, an unidentified whistle blower altered RJL that Mr. Noronha or his sub-agents were trading in off-book investments and taking secret commissions, which is a serious regulatory infraction. RJL undertook an investigation. The investigation indicated that Mr. Noronha was using his personal e-mail address to carry on business and that this irregular and unauthorized activity suggested that he was attempting to conceal his activities in contravention of RJL's compliance manual as well as RJL's policy relating to the use of computer systems.

[18] RJL spoke to Mr. Noronha and his sub-agents. Mr. Noronha admitted to off-book investments but did not disclose the details. RJL concluded that there was a reasonable likelihood that he was conducting improper off-book investment activity. RJL felt that it had no alternative but to terminate the agency agreement.

[19] RJL had warned Mr. Noronha that using e-mail to conduct business was improper and prevented RJL from fulfilling its regulatory responsibilities to monitor business communications with clients and to comply with IIROC Rules.

[20] On October 4, 2013, pursuant to art. 5.3 of the agency agreement, RJL gave Mr. Noronha notice of termination. On October 4, 2013, the outstanding balance on the loan was $634,285.71.

[21] RJL's letter of termination stated:

Further to our telephone call, this letter will serve to confirm our communication conversation today where you advised that a decision has been made to terminate your agency agreement with RJL and RJFP (collectively "the Firm") for cause effective immediately pursuant to section 5.3 of the Agency Agreement.

We have advised you of the investigation we have undertaken into your activities of which were have recently become aware. During the course of your [page122] interview you admitted conducting business using several personal email accounts rather than your Raymond James email account which the Firm requires you to use for business communications with clients. Our Chief Compliance Officer had spoken to you about not using personal email accounts for Raymond James business purposes as specified in our Firm's Compliance Manual and you have ignored that warning with flagrant disregard. This breach prohibits Raymond James fulfilling its regulatory responsibilities to monitor business communications with clients and to fulfill archiving requirements in accordance with IIROC rules. You refused Joe Paladino's request to turn over all business email communications that you have sent or received from you[r] personal email address, indicating that you would respond only to specific requests.

Further, we have recently learned that there has been off-book investment activity by your clients which you admit to being aware of and which you deny being involved in. At no time did you disclose this information to the Firm despite the fact that you had earlier requested, and the Firm had denied, product approval in one of those securities. As we do not have access to your personal email accounts, we have not been able to verify your account, by reviewing all of your communications with clients or others or to ascertain the extent, if any, undisclosed outside business activity. It is a fundamental requirement in a principal-agency relationship for the principal to have trust and confidence in any agent to be honest and forthcoming and to abide by regulatory rules and the Firm's compliance manual.

As a result of the termination of the Agency Agreements, you are obliged to repay the outstanding balance of the loans made to you by RJL pursuant to the Loan Agreement dated September 1, 2013 as referenced in the RJL Agent Agreement. . . .

Although the Firm has a claim on the book of business under your FA code for as long as the amounts due under the Loan are unrepaid, we will cooperate with you in the orderly transition and transfer of clients to you with another firm. To this end, you have requested that we extend the sponsorship of you license for up to 60 days (to December 5, 2013) to allow time for you to make alternate arrangements and to service the clients fulfilling know you client obligations. This temporary accommodation to facilitate continued client service and orderly transition, will permit you to service clients as a temporary agent of the Firm which will terminate December 5, 2013.

[22] At the time the agency agreement was terminated, although the extent of it was not known, Mr. Noronha or his sub-agents for whom he was responsible had committed serious infractions of the IIROC Rules. On cross-examination, Mr. Noronha acknowledged that by signing the agency agreement, he understood that he would be required to comply with all applicable laws and RJL's compliance manuals. Further, he acknowledged that he was be governed by and was required to adhere to IIROC Rules.

[23] On November 27, 2013, notwithstanding that he had already been terminated as a sales agent, Mr. Noronha advised that he was resigning as an agent for RJL. The resignation letter stated: [page123]

Please accept this letter of resignation effectively immediately. Despite the circumstances around my departure from Raymond James Ltd., I would like to thank the individuals at the firm who have worked to make the situation as good as possible over the past weeks . . . Thank you in advance for ensuring the smooth transition of my client assets to my new firm.

Lastly, I acknowledge my debt to Raymond James Ltd. and will contact you to discuss terms for repaying this debt as we discussed in a conversation earlier this month. I hope you understand that my focus in the short term needs to be on securing my business which is under the stress caused by my former associates.

[24] On November 27, 2013, RJL notified IIROC, as it was required to do, that Mr. Noronha had been terminated as a sales agent.

[25] As noted above in the termination letter of October 4, 2013, RJL facilitated Mr. Noronha as he transitioned his client assets to his new firm. RJL provided Mr. Noronha with a temporary sponsorship of his IIROC licence. In the months that followed, substantially all of Mr. Noronha's clients followed him to his new firm.

[26] IIROC decided to undertake an investigation of Mr. Noronha's activities as a sales agent, and on February 8, 2014, it issued a notice of hearing alleging that Mr. Noronha had contravened IIROC Dealer Member Rules. Among the allegations, IIROC contended that Mr. Noronha

(a) engaged in business conduct or practice that was unbecoming or detrimental to the public interest by recommending and facilitating investments to clients that were conducted off the books and records and without consent of RJL, contrary to Dealer Member Rule 29.1; (b) accepted, directly or indirectly, remuneration from persons other than RJL through his spouse for securities-related matters, contrary to Rule 18.15; (c) failed to disclose to RJL and to his clients a conflict of interest, contrary to IIROC Dealer Member Rule 42; and (d) engaged in business conduct or practice unbecoming or detrimental to the public interest by deleting e-mail records, contrary to IIROC Dealer Member Rule 29.1.

[27] On May 15, 2014, RJL provided Mr. Noronha with a statement of earnings and expenses regarding earned but unpaid commissions which, pursuant to art. 3.3 of the agency agreement, were being held back by RJL for set-off against the [page124] outstanding balance of the loan. Taking into account set-offs for revenues, interest, expenses and other charges, the net amount outstanding on Mr. Noronha's forgivable loan is $276,596.70.

[28] Mr. Noronha has made no payment on the outstanding debt related to the loan.

[29] On July 21, 2014, RJL commenced an action against Mr. Noronha for recovery of the loan indebtedness and for the payment of legal fees and other expenses incurred by RJL in defending three lawsuits brought by former clients of Mr. Noronha and his sub-agent, Ms. Tatham. RJL's claim totalled $298,783.62.

[30] On February 23, 2015, Mr. Noronha delivered a statement of defence and counterclaim He alleged, among other things, wrongful termination and a breach of a duty of good faith in terminating the agency agreement. He alleged that RJL terminated the agency agreement in order to capture his book of business that he had brought with him from Dundee Wealth Management. He sought damages of $2.0 million.

[31] On September 9, 2016, the IIROC held a pre-hearing telephone conference. Mr. Noronha's lawyer advised that he would not be representing Mr. Noronha at the hearing scheduled for November 28-29, 2016. Mr. Noronha advised that that he would not be attending the hearing.

[32] On November 28-29, 2016, IIROC conducted a disciplinary hearing relating to the infractions set out in the notice of hearing. Mr. Noronha did not attend. The IIROC panel proceeded to hear evidence. It reserved its decision.

[33] On January 23, 2017, the IIROC panel released its decision. The panel concluded that Mr. Noronha had committed the following violations:

(1) between January 2011 and September 2013, Mr. Noronha engaged in business conduct or practice unbecoming or detrimental to the public interest when he recommended and facilitated investments for his clients in shares of two issuers, which were conducted off the books and records and without the consent of his dealer member firms, contrary to Dealer Member Rule 29.1; (2) between January 2011 and September 2013, Mr. Noronha, directly and indirectly through his spouse, accepted remuneration and/or consideration from persons other than his dealer member firms in regards to securities-related activities, contrary to IIROC Dealer Member Rule 18.15; [page125] (3) between January 2011 and September 2013, Mr. Noronha failed to disclose to his dealer member firms and to his clients, and failed to address, a conflict of interest, contrary to IIROC Dealer Member Rule 42; and (4) in October 2013, Mr. Noronha engaged in business conduct or practice unbecoming or detrimental to the public interest when he deleted e-mail records, contrary to IIROC Dealer Member Rule 29.1.

[34] Further, the IIROC found that Mr. Noronha had, directly and indirectly through his spouse, received $669,500 from The Mint Corporation and Voodoo Vox Inc. in exchange for soliciting placing investments in these companies by Mr. Noronha's clients and by other individuals that he introduced to them.

[35] Further still, the panel found that Mr. Noronha had deleted or removed e-mails for the purpose of stopping RJL from knowing about the transactions that he had undertaken while acting as a portfolio manager. The panel found that Mr. Noronha had deprived RJL of the opportunity to supervise his conduct as a portfolio manager and that he effectively sought to derive RJL of the opportunity to fulfil its duties and obligations under securities regulations.

[36] The IIROC permanently barred Mr. Noronha from registering with IIROC in any capacity and fined him $669,500, representing disgorgement of the amounts received by Mr. Noronha, as well as an additional fine of $200,000.

[37] Mr. Noronha did not appeal IIROC's decision.

C. Discussion

1. Is the case appropriate for a summary judgment?

[38] Rule 20.04(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 provides that the court shall grant summary judgment if "the court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial with respect to a claim or defence". With amendments to Rule 20 introduced in 2010, the powers of the court to grant summary judgment have been enhanced. Rule 20.04(2.1) states:

20.04(2.1) In determining under clause (2)(a) whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial, the court shall consider the evidence submitted by the parties and, if the determination is being made by a judge, the judge may exercise any of the following powers for the purpose, unless it is in the interest of justice for such powers to be exercised only at a trial:

Weighing the evidence. [page126]
Evaluating the credibility of a deponent.
Drawing any reasonable inference from the evidence.

[39] In Hryniak v. Mauldin and Bruno Appliance and Furniture, Inc. v. Hryniak, the Supreme Court of Canada held that on a motion for summary judgment under Rule 20, the court should first determine if there is a genuine issue requiring trial based only on the evidence in the motion record, without using the fact-finding powers introduced when Rule 20 was amended in 2010. The analysis of whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial should be done by reviewing the factual record and granting a summary judgment if there is sufficient evidence to fairly and justly adjudicate the dispute and a summary judgment would be a timely, affordable and proportionate procedure.

[40] If, however, there appears to be a genuine issue requiring a trial, then the court should determine if the need for a trial can be avoided by using the powers under rules 20.04(2.1) and (2.2). As a matter of discretion, the motion judge may use those powers, provided that their use is not against the interest of justice. Their use will not be against the interest of justice if their use will lead to a fair and just result and will serve the goals of timeliness, affordability and proportionality in light of the litigation as a whole. To grant summary judgment, on a review of the record, the motion judge must be of the view that sufficient evidence has been presented on all relevant points to allow him or her to draw the inferences necessary to make dispositive findings and to fairly and justly adjudicate the issues in the case.

[41] Hryniak v. Mauldin does not alter the principle that the court will assume that the parties have placed before it, in some form, all of the evidence that will be available for trial. The court is entitled to assume that the parties have advanced their best case and that the record contains all the evidence that the parties will present at trial. Thus, if the moving party meets [page127] the evidentiary burden of producing evidence on which the court could conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial, the responding party must either refute or counter the moving party's evidence or risk a summary judgment.

[42] In my opinion, in the case at bar, there are no genuine issues requiring a trial and the case at bar is an appropriate case for a summary judgment in the claim and the counterclaim. It is further my opinion that if there were genuine issues requiring a trial, then there is a more than adequate evidentiary record to decide the genuine issues and it would be in the interests of justice to do so.

2. Should RJL's summary judgment motion be granted?

[43] Under Schedule "D" to the agency agreement, upon an event of default, the principal amount outstanding on the loan became immediately due and payable to RJL in October 2013. Events of default included the termination of the agency agreement for any reason; the resignation or departure as a registrant with the dealer; the termination of the agent's registration by the dealer with or without cause; and the agent's breach of the agency agreement. In the case at bar all of these events of default occurred in October 2013.

[44] Under Schedule "D" to the agency agreement, in the event of a default occurring before the full forgiveness of the loan had occurred, the then outstanding balance of the loans, costs and all moneys owing by the agent to the dealer and all liabilities of the agent become immediately due and payable and constituted a debt due and owing to the dealer by the agent.

[45] Thus, it is a straightforward matter of contract enforcement that entitles RJL to claim the balance now owing on Mr. Noronha's debt.

[46] There is no merit to Mr. Noronha's submission that RJL's termination of the agency agreement was a pretence to misappropriate his book of business and was a breach of a duty of good [page128] faith. As a factual matter, the termination was a genuine termination for the various events of default and there was no appropriation of Mr. Noronha's book of business, which he eventually lost through no fault of RJL but through Mr. Noronha being banned for life from being an investment dealer.

[47] There is no merit to Mr. Noronha's submission, made for the first time in his factum and not pleaded in his statement of defence, that there was no consideration for the forgivable loan provisions of Schedule D of the agency agreement. There obviously was consideration for the agency agreement and Mr. Noronha received $880,000, which money under the clear and unambiguous wording of the agency agreement was not a gift or signing bonus but was the loan that Mr. Noronha acknowledged in his own resignation letter. Moreover, Mr. Noronha's unpleaded allegations are contrary to the admissions he made in this action.

[48] There are no genuine issues requiring a trial of RJL's claim. And there are no genuine issues requiring a trial in Mr. Noronha's counterclaim. Without regard to the findings of the IIROC disciplinary panel, Mr. Noronha cannot make out a case that he was wrongfully terminated or that RJL misappropriated his book of business.

[49] Further, if regard is taken to the findings of the IIROC disciplinary panel, either as a matter of issue estoppel or as confirmatory of RJL's own suspicion that Mr. Noronha or his associates were dealing in off the book investments, then Mr. Noronha cannot possibly prove that he was wrongfully terminated.

[50] Mr. Noronha did not advance any evidence on this summary judgment motion to demonstrate that had he actually defended the IIROC disciplinary proceeding, the outcome would have been any different.

[51] The IIROC proceeding confirm that RJL had good reason and had properly terminated the agency agreement. If Mr. Noronha suffered damages as a result of the deterioration and loss of his book of business, he cannot blame RJL for those losses.

D. Conclusion

[52] For the above reasons, RJL's summary judgment motion is granted.

[53] If the parties cannot agree about the matter of costs, they may make written submissions in writing beginning with RJL's submissions within 20 days of the release of these reasons [page129] for decision, followed by Mr. Noronha's submissions within a further 20 days.

Motion granted.

Notes

1 [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, [2014] S.C.J. No. 7, 2014 SCC 7. 2 [2014] 1 S.C.R. 126, [2014] S.C.J. No. 8, 2014 SCC 8. 3 Campana v. Mississauga (City), [2016] O.J. No. 2704, 2016 ONSC 3421 (S.C.J.); Ghaeinizadeh (Litigation guardian of) v. Garfinkle Biderman LLP, [2014] O.J. No. 4278, 2014 ONSC 4994 (S.C.J.), leave to appeal to Div. Ct. refused [2015] O.J. No. 1508, 2015 ONSC 1953 (Div. Ct.); Lavergne v. Dominion Citrus Ltd., [2014] O.J. No. 1806, 2014 ONSC 1836 (S.C.J.), at para. 38; George Weston Ltd. v. Domtar Inc. (2012), 112 O.R. (3d) 190, [2012] O.J. No. 4123, 2012 ONSC 5001 (S.C.J.). 4 Dawson v. Rexcraft Storage and Warehouse Inc., [1998] O.J. No. 3240, 164 D.L.R. (4th) 257 (C.A.); Bluestone v. Enroute Restaurants Inc. (1994), 18 O.R. (3d) 481, [1994] O.J. No. 1214 (C.A.); Canada (Attorney General) v. Lameman, 2008 SCC 14, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 372, [2008] S.C.J. No. 14, at para. 11. 5 Toronto-Dominion Bank v. 466888 Ontario Ltd. (2010), 103 O.R. (3d) 502, [2010] O.J. No. 2836, 2010 ONSC 3798 (S.C.J.). 6 TD Waterhouse Canada Inc. v. Little, [2009] O.J. No. 3465, 76 C.C.E.L. (3d) 243 (S.C.J.), affd [2010] O.J. No. 724, 2010 ONCA 145; Canaccord Genuity Corp. v. Beck, [2013] O.J. No. 5949, 2013 ONSC 7964 (S.C.J.); Canaccord Genuity Corp. v. Sammy, [2014] O.J. No. 2923, 2014 ONSC 3691 (S.C.J.).

Raymond James Ltd. v. Noronha, 2018 ONSC 4997

Case Summary

Raymond James Ltd. v. Noronha

Case Summary

Cases Referred To

Rules and Regulations Referred To

A. Introduction

B. Facts

C. Discussion

1. Is the case appropriate for a summary judgment?

2. Should RJL's summary judgment motion be granted?

D. Conclusion

Notes

Cited By (1 case)

Raymond James Ltd. v. Noronha, 2018 ONSC 6007

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law