Robert Bevan Brooksbank

A defendant sought to vary a Mareva injunction and Norwich order granted in connection with allegations of a fraudulent scheme involving the misappropriation of public funds earmarked for homelessness relief.

The defendant sought to exclude future income from the Mareva Order's scope, obtain monthly releases for living expenses and a one-time release for outstanding debts, remove the passport surrender requirement, and remove a phone number from the Norwich Order.

The court dismissed all aspects of the motion, finding the defendant had not met the required test for varying the Mareva Order due to lack of full and frank disclosure, and that the passport requirement and Norwich Order remained appropriate given the circumstances.

The court considered whether Ontario had jurisdiction over a claim by Grand HVAC Leasing Ltd. against four Alberta-based defendants who guaranteed the obligations of Boaz Pharmaceuticals Inc. under equipment leases.

The court found that the guarantees were not made in Ontario, and that there was no real and substantial connection between Ontario and the dispute.

Even if jurisdiction existed, the court would have stayed the action in favour of Alberta as the more appropriate forum.

The claim was stayed, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The Plaintiffs moved to strike the Defendants' Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for non-compliance with a prior contempt order, which required payment of a fine and costs.

The court found the Defendants' failure to comply was deliberate and their explanations for non-payment were not credible.

Applying the factors from *Falcon Lumber* and principles from *Rana v. Unifund Assurance Company*, the court determined that striking the pleadings was necessary to uphold court orders and ensure the fair administration of justice, given the Defendants' pattern of non-compliance and attempts to renegotiate orders.

This case concerns the contractual interpretation of a "Life of Mine" supply agreement for liquid sodium cyanide between Kinross (as buyer) and Cyanco (as seller).

Kinross sought a declaration that the agreement did not preclude it from sourcing solid sodium cyanide from other suppliers and converting it to liquid for its mining operations.

The court dismissed Kinross's claim, finding that such an action would conflict with the agreement's terms, which established Cyanco as the sole supplier of liquid sodium cyanide required by Kinross's mines for their operations.

The court emphasized reading the contract as a whole, giving words their ordinary meaning, and considering commercial reasonableness.

The applicant, Don Bernier, brought an oppression application under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, asserting he was a beneficial and equitable shareholder of Skilcor Food Products Inc. and La Riberie Inc. at the time of their 2017 sales, and was denied his shareholder entitlement.

The respondents denied his shareholder status.

The court found that while an oral agreement for a 9% interest in a "Consolidated group" (Skilcor food assets, La Riberie, and Northbud) existed prior to 2010, this agreement was mutually rescinded by the parties' subsequent conduct, specifically the sale and winding-up of Northbud in 2013.

This rendered the original agreement inoperative as Bernier no longer had the equity contribution (Northbud shares) upon which his interest was based.

The court concluded Bernier was not a shareholder of Skilcor or La Riberie at the time of the sales and therefore lacked standing to bring an oppression claim.

The application was dismissed.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt against the Defendants for breaching a Mareva Order and a Continuation Order.

The Defendants had encumbered a property, which was subject to the orders, with a mortgage and dissipated rental income without informing the Plaintiffs or their own counsel.

The Defendants argued they acted innocently and that the Mareva Order was obtained with "unclean hands." The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt, finding that the orders were clear, the Defendants had actual knowledge, and their actions were intentional.

The court rejected the Defendants' explanations as incredible given their real estate experience and found them in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court ordered an accounting and tracing of funds and scheduled a hearing for remedies.

FCA Canada Inc. applied to set aside an arbitration award that ordered it to remove and replace an aftermarket remote starter in Christine Lamontagne's vehicle.

The arbitrator found a "Current Defect" in the vehicle and ordered the remedy.

FCA argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction or exceeded his authority, and that the finding of a defect was unreasonable.

The court dismissed FCA's application, finding that FCA waived its right to object to jurisdiction by not raising it promptly as a preliminary issue, and that the arbitrator's decision on the merits was reasonable and within the scope of the arbitration agreement.