Robert Paul Steep

The appellant sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act to commence an action against the respondent bank for misrepresentations in a corporate circular and prospectus.

The appellant alleged the bank was a 'promoter' and an 'influential person' who knowingly influenced the release of the documents.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding the appellant failed to offer a plausible interpretation of 'promoter' and lacked sufficient evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that a promoter must play a vital or leading role in the organization or reorganization of an issuer, and that providing conventional banking or advisory services is insufficient.

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.

In the context of CCAA proceedings for U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), the applicant sought approval for Transition Arrangements with its parent company, a Business Preservation Plan involving significant cash conservation measures (including suspension of pension, OPEB, and municipal tax payments), and Amended DIP Financing.

The court approved the motions, finding that the Transition Arrangements were fair and reasonable, and that the Business Preservation Plan and DIP financing were necessary to allow USSC to continue operations and pursue a restructuring solution, despite objections from the union and municipalities regarding the suspension of benefits and taxes.

In the context of CCAA proceedings for U.S. Steel Canada Inc., three former employees brought a motion seeking payment of lump sum retention bonuses under their severance agreements.

The respondent argued the payments were pre-filing obligations subject to the CCAA stay.

The court found the bonuses were compensation for post-filing services, as they were contingent on the employees remaining available to work during the notice period.

The court exercised its discretion to order payment, finding it fair and equitable as it would not create an unfair priority over other employees and the amounts were de minimus.

In a bifurcated class action certification motion, the court considered whether unit-holders of a publicly traded real estate investment trust had pleaded viable causes of action arising from an allegedly conflicted property transaction that was later rescinded, causing a sharp drop in unit value.

The court held it was plain and obvious that officers and trustees did not owe fiduciary duties directly to unit-holders in the circumstances pleaded, and struck the fiduciary duty claims.

However, the breach of trust claims against certain trustees, grounded in the declaration of trust and the arguable ability of unit-holders to sue for dishonest or negligent breach of trustee obligations, were allowed to proceed.

The knowing assistance claim survived only against the former CEO, while similar claims against the vendor parties and their solicitors were struck for failure to plead active assistance in the trustee's breach.

Certification was dismissed as against the vendor parties and their solicitors.

The plaintiff, a unit-holder in a real estate investment trust (REIT), brought a proposed class action alleging that the REIT's former CEO and trustees breached their fiduciary duties and duties of trust by entering into an undisclosed related-party transaction.

On a bifurcated certification motion to determine if the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act, the court struck the breach of fiduciary duty claims, finding that the defendants owed duties to the REIT but not to the unit-holders.

However, the court allowed the breach of trust claims against the trustees and the knowing assistance claim against the former CEO to proceed, while striking the knowing assistance claims against the vendor and the vendor's solicitors.

In a joint cross-border insolvency trial concerning the allocation of approximately $7.3 billion in lockbox funds from the sale of global business lines and residual intellectual property, the court interpreted the Master R&D Agreement as an operating transfer-pricing document that granted limited licence rights but did not govern post-insolvency allocation.

The court rejected both the position that one Canadian debtor owned all sale proceeds by virtue of legal title and the position that the EMEA debtors jointly owned all intellectual property by operation of law.

Applying unjust enrichment principles and the broad remedial jurisdiction available in CCAA proceedings, the court held that a just result required a pro rata allocation among debtor estates based on allowed claims.

The court further directed that duplicate claims be counted only once for allocation purposes, that intercompany claims be included, and that interim distribution proposals be brought forward.

In ongoing restructuring proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the debtor company sought court approval of a coke conversion agreement with its parent corporation.

The motion was brought on an urgent basis due to operational deadlines relating to coal shipments and winter shipping constraints on the Great Lakes.

The monitor supported the agreement and reported that it would be cash‑flow positive, would recall employees from temporary layoff, and would not interfere with the ongoing sales and restructuring process.

The court held that it had jurisdiction under s. 11 of the CCAA and found the agreement appropriate in the circumstances.

A sealing order was also granted to protect confidential commercial information contained in an unredacted version of the agreement.

A dissident unitholder sought declarations allowing it to nominate trustees at a real estate investment trust’s annual meeting despite the trust’s advance notice policy.

The dispute turned on the interpretation of a proviso stating that adjournment or postponement of a meeting would not commence a new nomination period.

The court held that the nomination window is triggered by the actual date of the meeting, not the originally scheduled date, and that the proviso merely prevents previously valid nominations from becoming stale after postponement.

Interpreting the declaration of trust according to contractual principles and favouring unitholder electoral rights where ambiguity exists, the court concluded that the applicant’s nomination notice was timely.

The applicant was therefore entitled to nominate trustees at the meeting.

Following a major appellate decision regarding the tolling of limitation periods in securities class actions, the successful parties in two of the appeals sought their costs.

The opposing parties argued for reduced costs on the basis of public interest, over-lawyering, and the fact that the court had overruled its own prior jurisprudence.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, finding the claimed amounts to be fair and reasonable given the complexity and significance of the proceedings.

Costs of $151,250 and $100,000 were awarded to the respective successful parties on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the former and current trustees of the Nortel Health and Welfare Trust, alleging fraud and constructive fraud in the administration of the trust.

The defendants moved to strike the claim under Rule 21, arguing that the claims were barred by a release granted in Nortel's CCAA proceedings and were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that the CCAA release barred the constructive fraud claims, and that the plaintiff failed to plead a tenable claim for common law fraud.

Furthermore, the court found that the claims were discovered outside the two-year limitation period.

The action was dismissed.

In three related securities class action appeals, the court reconsidered whether a statutory secondary-market misrepresentation claim under s. 138.3 of the Securities Act is time-barred unless leave is obtained within the s. 138.14 limitation period.

The court overruled Timminco and held that, for purposes of s. 28 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the statutory claim is asserted when the representative plaintiff pleads the statutory cause of action, the supporting facts, and an intention to seek leave within a timely commenced class proceeding.

The court also upheld the motion judge's interpretation of the s. 138.8 leave standard as screening out hopeless claims, while holding that the Green certification decision erred in failing to consider certifying common negligent misrepresentation issues other than reliance.

The plaintiffs' appeal in Green was allowed in part and the defendants' appeals in Silver and Celestica were dismissed.

IIROC Staff applied for a hearing and review of an IIROC Hearing Panel decision that dismissed allegations against TD Securities Inc. (TDSI) for failing to comply with its trading supervision obligations.

The IIROC Hearing Panel had found that several TDSI traders entered artificial closing bids but concluded that TDSI's supervisory system was adequate.

On review, the Ontario Securities Commission found that the IIROC Hearing Panel did not overlook or misapprehend material evidence, nor did it err in law or proceed on an incorrect principle.

The Commission deferred to the IIROC Hearing Panel's factual determinations and its assessment of the adequacy of TDSI's multi-tiered supervisory system.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant beer distributor sought an interlocutory injunction preventing the respondent brewer from terminating a long-standing licence agreement granting exclusive Canadian distribution rights for certain beer brands.

The respondent issued a termination notice based on the applicant’s failure to meet contractual volume targets after an amendment to the licence agreement terminated automatically when industry regulatory changes did not occur.

The court held that serious issues existed regarding the continued effect of a contractual waiver of termination rights and whether the respondent was required to engage in good faith negotiations before exercising termination rights.

The court also found that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm through disruption of its product portfolio, damage to customer relationships, and potential harm to brand equity.

Balancing the parties’ respective harms and favouring preservation of the status quo pending trial, the court granted the interlocutory injunction.

The applicants brought motions to quash summonses issued by Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission to two lawyers, compelling them to attend examinations.

Staff argued the summonses were part of an ongoing investigation into insider tipping and trading.

The applicants argued the summonses were an improper attempt to conduct pre-hearing discovery of witnesses who would testify at the upcoming merits hearing.

The Commission found that the real purpose of the summonses was to prepare for the merits hearing, which is an inappropriate use of Staff's investigative powers.

The motions were granted and the summonses were quashed.

The tax debtor owed tax to the federal government.

The Minister of National Revenue issued requirements to pay to the appellant bank, seeking to intercept funds from cheques drawn by the tax debtor on his trust account and deposited into a joint account held by the tax debtor and a third party.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the bank was not liable to make a payment to the tax debtor personally.

When the bank received the cheques for deposit into the joint account, it acted as a collecting bank for the joint account holders, not as an agent for the payee.

Therefore, the requirements to pay under s. 224(1) of the Income Tax Act were not triggered.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a hearing under section 127 of the Securities Act regarding Magna International Inc.'s proposed plan of arrangement to collapse its multiple voting share structure.

Staff alleged the management information circular lacked sufficient information and the transaction was contrary to the public interest.

The Commission found the proposed transaction was not abusive, but concluded the circular failed to provide shareholders with sufficient disclosure to make an informed decision, particularly given the lack of a board recommendation and the transaction's nature as a related party transaction.

The Commission ordered that the circular be amended to include specific material information, including financial analysis and alternatives considered by the special committee, before the shareholder vote could proceed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion to vary the terms of an injunction.

The moving party argued the decision conflicted with other cases and there was good reason to doubt its correctness.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no conflict in principle, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general public importance.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding party.