Simon Bieber

The plaintiff provided electrical engineering and consulting services for a cannabis grow operation on tribal lands in California.

The project was shut down by a federal law enforcement raid, and the plaintiff was left with unpaid invoices for its work and materials.

The plaintiff sued the defendant, who had provided the funding for the project, arguing that the site manager who hired the plaintiff was acting as the defendant's agent.

The court found that the defendant and the tribe were in a partnership to operate the project, and that the site manager had actual authority to contract on behalf of the partnership.

The defendant was held liable for the unpaid invoices plus contractual interest.

The Law Society of Ontario brought a motion for contempt against Mr. Sutharsan for breaching a 2021 injunction that prohibited him from providing unauthorized legal services.

Mr. Sutharsan consented to the contempt order, and the matter proceeded to a penalty hearing.

The LSO sought 30 days incarceration.

The court, applying the five-factor test for civil contempt sanctions, found Mr. Sutharsan remorseful and his breaches not egregious enough to warrant incarceration.

The court imposed a penalty of 100 hours of community service and ordered Mr. Sutharsan to pay $6,000 in costs to the LSO, payable at $300 per month.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents engaged in illegal distribution of securities, unregistered trading, securities fraud, and improper revenue recognition, the Capital Markets Tribunal determined the appropriate sanctions and costs.

The Tribunal ordered disgorgement totaling $4.91 million, administrative penalties totaling $3.175 million, and significant market restrictions, including permanent bans for the GBR parties and multi-year bans for the First Global parties.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondents to pay costs totaling $1,080,285, apportioned based on their respective roles and the time spent investigating and litigating the various contraventions.

This is an appeal from a decision dismissing an action for abuse of process due to the appellant's failure to immediately disclose a settlement agreement.

The appellant, Skymark Finance Corporation, entered into Minutes of Settlement with a key defendant, Lorraine Smith, which fundamentally altered the litigation dynamics by changing an adversarial relationship into a cooperative one.

Skymark failed to disclose this agreement for eight months, only doing so after being threatened with an abuse of process motion.

The motion judge stayed the action, and the Court of Appeal upheld this decision, reiterating the strict obligation for immediate disclosure of such agreements and confirming that the absence of prejudice does not excuse non-compliance.

The plaintiffs brought a post-trial motion to compel the defendants to cooperate in executing the sale and property management issues directed in a previous judgment, which found the plaintiffs to be 50% beneficial owners of the subject property.

At the hearing, the parties agreed on the form of the formal judgment and the mechanics for listing the property, managing it in the interim, and handling rental income.

The court ordered the defendants to cooperate with the plaintiffs in selling the property and to pay rents into court or trust, less agreed-upon expenses, with an order going as submitted by mutual agreement.

Following a successful 7-day trial regarding a commercial property dispute, the plaintiffs sought costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of their Rule 49 offer, and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The court found the plaintiffs' offer was more favourable to the defendants than the final judgment.

Noting the defendants' repeated failures to produce documents and delay tactics over the 9-year litigation, the court awarded the plaintiffs $650,000 in costs inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiffs' motion for interlocutory injunctive relief and a certificate of pending litigation was dismissed.

The defendants and non-party Project Companies sought costs.

The plaintiffs opposed an award of costs or argued for a reduced amount, but failed to provide their own costs outline.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments to deny costs or defer them to the trial judge.

Applying the principle that an attack on costs without providing one's own dockets is an 'attack in the air,' the court found the claimed amounts reasonable and awarded partial indemnity costs of $65,000 to the defendants and $39,000 to the Project Companies.

The applicants brought a Charter challenge against the public funding of Roman Catholic separate schools for non-Catholic students and high school students in Ontario.

The respondent moved to strike the application under Rule 21.01.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Supreme Court of Canada had already determined these issues in the Reference re Bill 30 decision, which held that minority education rights under section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 are immune from Charter scrutiny.

The court concluded there was no new legal issue or fundamental change in circumstances that would allow it to depart from binding precedent, rendering the application doomed to fail.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that held them liable for the balance of a business purchase price.

Their defence was based on fraudulent misrepresentations about the business's revenues.

The motion judge had dismissed this defence, relying on an "entire agreement" clause in the purchase agreement and the appellants' opportunities for due diligence.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in law by giving preclusive effect to the entire agreement clause, as such clauses do not immunize against fraudulent misrepresentation.

Furthermore, opportunities for due diligence do not negate a party's right to avoid a contract based on fraudulent misrepresentation if actual knowledge of the untruth was not proven.

The Court concluded that a genuine issue for trial existed regarding the fraudulent misrepresentation and allowed the appeal, setting aside the summary judgment and remitting the matter for trial.

The plaintiffs, limited partners and their newly appointed general partners, moved for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the former general partners and non-party project companies from dealing with real estate development properties pending a governance trial.

They also sought leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation and to amend their statement of claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that an interlocutory injunction could not be granted against the non-party project companies because the plaintiffs had not claimed a permanent injunction against them, nor had they provided an undertaking in damages.

The request for a certificate of pending litigation was also denied as the plaintiffs, being shareholders of the project companies, did not have a triable issue for a direct interest in the properties.

The plaintiffs and defendants, former friends, invested in real estate together.

The plaintiffs claimed a 50% beneficial interest in a property registered solely in the defendants' names, based on an oral agreement and a $69,000 contribution.

The court found the oral agreement enforceable due to part performance, overcoming the Statute of Frauds, and ordered the property sold and proceeds divided.

The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' libel claim regarding false accusations of criminal conduct, finding the publication was de minimis and caused no actual harm.

The action was held to be within the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The defendant vendors brought a motion to permanently stay the action, alleging the plaintiff purchasers failed to promptly disclose a settlement agreement reached with the co-defendant brokers.

The court found that the agreement was a 'simple settlement' involving only a without-costs dismissal and a standard release, with no terms requiring the brokers' cooperation against the vendors.

Applying recent appellate jurisprudence, the court held that the agreement did not entirely change the litigation landscape or the adversarial relationship between the parties, and therefore did not trigger the immediate disclosure requirement.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion at the opening of trial to strike the defendants' statement of defence due to their failure to comply with multiple pre-trial production orders regarding financial records.

The court found that while the defendants' production was tardy and potentially incomplete, striking the defence altogether would be a disproportionate remedy.

The motion was dismissed, with the court noting that adverse inferences could be drawn at trial if the plaintiffs' ability to prove their claim was impeded by missing records.

The respondent Silvio Serrano brought a motion and application seeking disclosure of a Confidential Order and related reasons that authorized redactions to transcripts of a co-respondent's compelled interview.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the term of the Commissioner who had presided over preliminary procedural matters expired, and a new panel was assigned.

Serrano brought a motion challenging the new panel's jurisdiction, arguing the original Commissioner's term should be extended under s. 4.3 of the SPPA or the matter heard de novo.

The Commission dismissed the panel composition motion, finding the original Commissioner only made procedural rulings and did not participate in the merits, so s. 4.3 did not apply and procedural fairness was not breached.

On the disclosure motion, the Commission ordered that the respondents be provided with redacted versions of the Confidential Order and Reasons, as well as information regarding the legal basis for the redactions, balancing the need for procedural fairness with the interests protected by the confidentiality.

The respondents raised approximately $170,600 from 90 investors through a fraudulent scheme involving a purported cryptocurrency mining company.

The Ontario Securities Commission found that the investments were 'securities' and that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading and illegal distribution.

The respondents made false representations about the business, use of funds, and expected returns, and misappropriated the funds for personal use.

The individual respondent also misled Staff and breached confidentiality during the investigation.

The Commission ordered permanent market bans, disgorgement of $170,600, an administrative penalty of $500,000, and costs of $100,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice M. Koehnen dated August 10, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

In an enforcement proceeding, the respondent Serrano brought a motion seeking disclosure of a Confidential Order and related reasons that redacted portions of a co-respondent's compelled interview transcripts.

Staff argued they were legally prohibited from identifying information relating to the Confidential Order and proposed an ex parte, in camera hearing to make submissions.

The Commission held that it had the inherent authority to control its own procedure and ordered a confidential phase of the hearing.

To address the inherent fairness concerns of excluding the respondents, the Commission appointed an amicus curiae to represent the interests of justice during the confidential phase.

The applicants and a related party obtained orders enforcing letters of request from a Florida court to compel the respondent to produce documents from electronic devices held by an independent third party (PWC).

The US court ordered the respondent to produce non-privileged documents, but on the deadline, his US counsel moved to withdraw, and the respondent unilaterally instructed PWC to revoke his US counsel's access to the database.

The court directed PWC to restore the US counsel's access, finding that the respondent could not unilaterally frustrate the discovery process by firing his lawyer.

The appellants appealed an urgent Commercial Court order that set a date for a requisitioned shareholder meeting, appointed an independent chair, and restrained directors opposing the requisition from voting shares issued to them after the requisition date.

The appellants argued the application judge failed to make an explicit finding of impropriety regarding the share issuance and failed to apply the business judgment rule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge's reasons were sufficient when read in context, as they clearly demonstrated concern that the shares were issued to dilute the requisitioning shareholders' voting power.

The court also held the application judge properly declined to apply the business judgment rule, as the directors' actions were not in the best interests of the company.

In the context of a shareholder proxy fight, the applicants sought an order declaring the dissident shareholders' proxy circulars materially misleading and invalidating their proxies.

The dissident shareholders brought a motion seeking to hold the upcoming shareholders meeting virtually and to appoint an independent chair.

The court dismissed the application, finding the circulars were not materially misleading.

The court allowed the motion in part, refusing to mandate a purely virtual meeting but appointing the dissidents' proposed independent chair after finding the applicants deliberately breached a prior court order by unilaterally appointing their own chair.