Peter W. Neufeld

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a $300,000 promissory note executed by the defendant.

The defendant raised several defences, including lack of consideration, reliance on misrepresentations, and that the matter should be delayed pending arbitration under a unanimous shareholders' agreement.

The court found no material facts in dispute, rejecting the defendant's arguments but granting credit for certain interest payments as agreed by the plaintiff.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the principal amount plus prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a $300,000 promissory note executed by the defendant.

The defendant admitted to borrowing the funds and failing to repay the note, but raised several defences, including lack of consideration, reliance on third-party misrepresentations, and a pending arbitration under a related shareholders' agreement.

The court rejected these defences, finding no material facts in dispute and that the obligation to pay the note was independent of the shareholders' agreement.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the principal amount plus prejudgment interest, with credit given for interest payments previously made by the defendant.

The plaintiff sought payment on a promissory note and moved for summary judgment.

The defendant alleged breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation by the plaintiff's principal, Dr. Takhar, for failing to disclose disciplinary actions.

Both parties brought motions for further answers to undertakings and questions refused during cross-examinations on affidavits related to the pending summary judgment motion.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion for further answers from the plaintiff, finding the questions irrelevant to the defence theory.

The court largely dismissed the plaintiff's motion for further answers from the defendant, also finding most questions irrelevant, but ordered the defendant to fulfill one undertaking regarding the use of loan funds.

The plaintiff sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Ontario Securities Act to commence an action for secondary market misrepresentation against Pretium Resources Inc. and Robert A. Quartermain.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to disclose material facts regarding conflicting expert opinions on the validity of a mineral resource estimate for the Brucejack Project, leading to a significant drop in share price.

The court granted leave, finding that the plaintiff established a reasonable possibility of success at trial.

The court determined that the concerns raised by Strathcona Mineral Services, a respected mining consultant, were material facts that a reasonable investor would consider important, despite Pretium's belief that the data was unreliable.

Furthermore, the court found a reasonable possibility that the defendants would not be able to establish the "no reasonable grounds to believe" branch of their reasonable investigation defense under s. 138.4(6) of the OSA.

The defendants (Underwriters) sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that allowed the plaintiff to amend its claim to add the Underwriters as defendants in a class action and admitted the plaintiff's expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision regarding the admissibility of the expert evidence and the finding that the Underwriters would not suffer non-compensable prejudice by being added as parties.