Robyn M. Ryan Bell

The appellants appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension and Notice of Proposed Order issued by the Ontario Racing Commission.

The parties reached a settlement and submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The appellants acknowledged that their licence renewals were paid by a third party in a manner inconsistent with the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

The panel accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts, under which the appellants agreed to return purse monies, pay fines totalling $45,000, pay costs of $30,000, and indefinitely refrain from seeking licences to conduct Standardbred Racing in Ontario.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order directing the receiver to file a Payments Report detailing distributions made by the insolvent companies.

The applicant argued the report could prejudice his ongoing criminal proceedings in the United States.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the receiver's duty is to the economic interests of the estate's stakeholders, not to protect a stakeholder's personal interest in avoiding prejudice in foreign criminal proceedings.

The proposed appeal was found to lack prima facie merit.

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 appellants, holders of convertible debentures in Rio Algom Limited, brought an oppression claim after a successful takeover bid by Billiton plc resulted in the delisting of Rio Algom's shares, rendering the debentures' conversion feature valueless.

The application judge dismissed the claim, finding that the trust indenture governing the debentures provided for the event of delisting and limited the debentureholders' remedy to redemption at par.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the debentureholders had no reasonable expectation of further compensation and that the indenture's 'no-action' clause precluded individual debentureholders from bringing an oppression action against the issuer or third parties.