Paul Douglas Guy

The court-appointed receiver of a corporation recommended that the company enter a plea agreement and plead guilty to a charge of mail fraud in the United States.

The motion judge approved the recommendation as being within the bounds of reasonableness.

The appellants appealed, arguing the receiver failed to properly assess the risk of conviction and the benefits of the plea agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the receiver's assessment of the risk of conviction, cost savings, and reduced exposure to civil liability and restitution was reasonable.

The appellant brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence on appeal regarding the enforcement of a Singapore judgment in Ontario.

The fresh evidence consisted of affidavits from a Singapore litigant who faced criminal contempt proceedings after criticizing the Singapore judicial system.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, applying the Palmer test.

The court found that the evidence could have been obtained earlier with due diligence and, given its political context, would not have affected the outcome of the commercial dispute.

The appellant appealed a decision recognizing and enforcing a judgment granted against it by the High Court of the Republic of Singapore.

The appellant argued that the Singapore judgment should not be enforced because it was granted by a corrupt legal system with biased judges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the foreign court properly assumed jurisdiction and that the appellant failed to establish the defences of public policy, bias, or lack of natural justice.

The court held that there was no cogent evidence of bias or corruption in private commercial cases in Singapore.

The appellant, a director of a public holding company, appealed orders removing him from the board of directors and denying him indemnification for costs incurred in resisting his removal.

The application judge had previously found the appellant engaged in oppressive conduct regarding a related-party loan but temporarily allowed him to remain on the board at the pleasure of the independent directors.

When the corporation's circumstances changed, including the commencement of litigation against the majority shareholder, the application judge ordered the appellant's permanent removal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge had jurisdiction under s. 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act to order the conditional service and subsequent removal of the director.

The Court also upheld the denial of indemnification, finding the appellant did not act in the best interests of the corporation in resisting his removal.

The responding party sought costs of $52,337.23 on a partial indemnity basis following the dismissal of the moving party's motions for leave to appeal a Mareva injunction and to adduce fresh evidence.

The moving party argued for costs in the range of $15,000.

The court noted the complexity of the motions but observed that the responding party failed to provide detailed docket entries.

Applying the principle of reasonable expectations, the court fixed the costs at $17,551.30 plus GST.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order granting a Mareva injunction and brought a preliminary motion to adduce fresh evidence on the leave application.

The Divisional Court held that it lacked jurisdiction under s. 134(4)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act to admit fresh evidence on an application for leave to appeal.

In any event, the proposed evidence did not meet the Palmer test because it could have been adduced before the motion judge became functus officio.

The court also denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no issue of general importance warranting appellate review.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for an anti-suit injunction and staying their counterclaims in Ontario pending the resolution of parallel proceedings in Delaware and Illinois.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.

The motion judge correctly applied the Amchem test and concluded that the foreign forums were more appropriate, noting that the jurisdiction clause in the parties' agreement was not exclusive.

The moving parties brought a motion to quash the appeals of an order by Farley J. The Court of Appeal determined that the order in question was interlocutory, as it merely postponed the appellants' entitlement to proceed with their counterclaim in Ontario pending the completion of United States proceedings, rather than finally deciding any issue against them.

Consequently, the appeals were quashed.