Paul Jonathan Saguil

Following a merits decision finding the respondents engaged in unregistered trading, illegal distribution, and fraud, the Ontario Securities Commission held a sanctions and costs hearing.

The individual respondent, who misappropriated over $4.6 million from investors in a fraudulent foreign exchange scheme, was permanently banned from the capital markets.

The Commission ordered disgorgement of $4,672,779.98, an administrative penalty of $750,000 to ensure specific and general deterrence, and $200,000 in costs.

The defendants appealed a master's order dismissing their motions for security for costs against corporate plaintiffs who had ceased operations and lacked assets in Ontario.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were not impecunious because the principals had personal assets, including an unencumbered home and retirement savings.

The court held that the master did not err in concluding the plaintiffs were genuinely impecunious and that requiring security would force abandonment of the claim.

The court accepted that the principals' assets were effectively constrained by debts, potential tax liabilities, and the need to fund the litigation.

Because the claim was not plainly devoid of merit, the master properly exercised discretion to refuse security for costs.

The appellant appealed an order requiring it to deliver a signed release.

The motion judge had held that releasing an individual partner's 'agents' also released his law firm from vicarious liability for his conduct.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that while a partner is an agent of the firm under the Partnership Act, the firm is not generally an agent of the individual partner.

The appeal was allowed in part to permit the appellant to plead that the law firm was vicariously liable for the partner's conduct.

The moving parties brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of a single Commissioner to complete a sanctions hearing after the term of the other panel member expired.

The moving parties argued that proceeding before a single member violated the audi alteram partem principle and the quorum requirements of the Securities Act.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that section 4.4(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permits the remaining member to complete the hearing and give a decision, and that section 32 of the SPPA resolves any conflict with the Securities Act's quorum requirements in favour of the SPPA.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario appealed a Board decision refusing to revoke the respondent's liquor licence.

The Registrar sought revocation because the respondent's sole officer and director was actively involved in the Hell's Angels.

The Registrar argued the Board applied the wrong legal standard under s. 6(2)(d) of the Liquor Licence Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board applied the correct 'reasonable grounds for belief' standard and properly assessed all pertinent factors regarding the operation of the licensed establishment.

The plaintiffs appealed an order of a case management master requiring them to post additional security for costs in complex civil litigation.

The plaintiffs were non-residents of Ontario and did not claim impecuniosity, but argued that the strength of their claims justified denying security for costs.

The court held that the master applied the wrong legal standard by requiring the plaintiffs to show an "overwhelming likelihood of success" rather than the correct standard of a "good chance of success" when assessing the merits under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Because this constituted an error of law, the appeal was allowed in part and the matter was remitted to the case management master for reconsideration using the proper standard.

The defendants brought parallel motions for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure against corporate and partnership plaintiffs who alleged losses exceeding $1,000,000 arising from a trading incident involving brokerage services and trading software.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

The court reviewed the financial circumstances of the plaintiffs and their principals and considered whether they could reasonably post security or obtain a letter of credit.

Finding that ordering security would effectively force abandonment of a claim that was not plainly devoid of merit, and that the plaintiffs were effectively impecunious, the court declined to require security for costs.

The motions were dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

Following a merits decision finding that Coventree Inc. and its senior officers, Geoffrey Cornish and Dean Tai, failed to disclose material changes in breach of the Securities Act, the Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to determine sanctions and costs.

The Commission emphasized the fundamental importance of timely disclosure to the integrity of capital markets.

While noting mitigating factors such as the respondents' lack of intent to mislead and their cooperation with Staff, the Commission imposed significant administrative penalties to achieve specific and general deterrence.

Coventree was ordered to pay a $1 million penalty and $250,000 in costs, while Cornish and Tai were each ordered to pay a $500,000 penalty and were prohibited from acting as directors or officers of a reporting issuer for one year.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class proceeding against the City of Toronto.

The proposed class action alleged the City was negligent in failing to send statutory notices of rent reduction to tenants of rooming houses after municipal property taxes were reduced.

The motions judge had found it plain and obvious that the City owed no duty of care to the tenants.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that based on the statutory scheme and the specific relationship created by the Parkdale Pilot Project, it was not plain and obvious that the City owed no duty of care.

The proceeding was certified as a class action.

The appellant voluntarily agreed to appear on the reality television show Dragons' Den and signed a consent agreement that precluded the two actions he subsequently commenced.

The appellant argued that it would be unconscionable to enforce the consent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was given ample time to read the consent, did not ask for more time, and signed it without expressing any concern, making its enforcement not unconscionable.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the licensee's liquor licence and ordered an interim suspension due to numerous alleged violations, including serving alcohol after hours, locking doors while patrons were inside, and failing to intervene in assaults.

Following a hearing to consider rescinding the interim suspension, the Board found that lifting the suspension would compromise public safety based on the licensee's admissions in an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Board ordered that the interim suspension remain in effect pending a final decision.

The applicant, an anesthesiologist, sought judicial review of an interim order made by the respondent's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee that effectively shut down his practice following a patient's death.

The court found that the Committee's decision to issue the interim order was unreasonable because there was no evidence of probable harm to future patients, only speculation based on a single incident.

Furthermore, the court held that the Committee breached procedural fairness by relying on undisclosed materials and improperly considered evidence protected under the Evidence Act.

The application was allowed and the interim order was quashed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Professional Development & Competency Committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada, which found that the accommodations granted to her for writing the bar admission examinations were adequate.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness and natural justice, citing interruptions by the Chair, failure to consider her reply and medical evidence, and an alleged discriminatory policy change.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had a full opportunity to make submissions, the Committee considered her evidence, and the accommodations granted were more than adequate.

The applicant alleged discrimination by the Law Society of Upper Canada for failing to accommodate her in the licensing process.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application because the applicant had a pending Application for Judicial Review before the Divisional Court on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, noting the judicial review was scheduled to be heard imminently.

The appellants brought an action in the Superior Court claiming they were exempt from paying GST on certain financial services under the Excise Tax Act.

The respondent successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the Tax Court of Canada had exclusive jurisdiction.

On appeal, the appellants argued the Superior Court had constitutional or concurrent jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the claim was not constitutional in nature and that the Tax Court of Canada Act, read with the Excise Tax Act, clearly gave the Tax Court exclusive jurisdiction over GST rebate claims.

The appellant, a thoroughbred trainer, appealed a Stewards' Ruling suspending him for 15 days and imposing a $1,000 fine after his horse tested positive for Methocarbamol (Robaxin).

The appellant argued that the positive test resulted from a mistake by veterinary technicians who administered the wrong medication.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish due diligence under the strict liability trainer responsibility rule, as he was not present during the administration of medications and did not ensure his instructions were followed.

The suspension was reduced to eight days in recognition of his excellent past record, with the remaining seven days stayed.