Simon Bieber

The plaintiffs brought an action to rescind a settlement agreement, alleging the defendant fraudulently inflated the company's revenue prior to the plaintiff purchasing the defendant's shares.

The defendants moved to strike the action as an abuse of process based on a full and final release signed during the settlement.

The plaintiffs moved for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from enforcing the settlement agreement's default provisions.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud that was not contemplated by the release.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, finding the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if the defendant returned to the business.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for class certification against an auditor.

The motion judge found that the pleadings failed to disclose a cause of action because settled law on auditor liability precluded a finding that the auditor owed a duty of care to unitholders of the funds.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding that the statement of claim did not plead material facts establishing an undertaking by the auditor to the unitholders for their individual investment decisions, which is required to establish sufficient proximity for a claim of pure economic loss.

This endorsement addresses a dispute over document production costs in Ontario, arising from letters of request issued by a Florida court to compel the respondent, Mr. Smith, to produce documents and attend examination in aid of US litigation.

The applicants (Perlmutters and Mr. Peerenboom) sought to avoid or shift the costs of Mr. Smith's counsel reviewing documents for relevancy and privilege, arguing Mr. Smith was an interested party and not impecunious.

The court affirmed its prior ruling that Mr. Smith's counsel must conduct the review and that the applicants are liable for these costs on a full indemnity basis, ordering them to pre-pay $200,000 for continued document production.

The applicant sought a declaration regarding the interpretation of a credit agreement and warrant certificate.

The applicant argued that the respondent could only exercise its share purchase warrants upon a liquidity event or additional security issuance.

The respondent argued the warrants could be exercised at any time.

The court applied principles of commercial contract interpretation, finding that the preamble clearly allowed exercise at any time and that restricting exercise to triggering events would lead to a commercial absurdity given the risk the respondent assumed.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The appellants, general partners in three limited partnerships, appealed an application judge's order requiring them to produce information to the respondent limited partners and to include specific material in annual and semi-annual reports.

The appellants argued procedural unfairness and that the order exceeded the limited partnership agreements (LPA).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness as the appellants had ample notice, and that the order was consistent with the broad information rights of limited partners under section 10 of the Limited Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

L.16, and did not prejudice the appellants.

K.S.P. Holdings Inc. (KSP) appealed a Master's decision that dismissed its motions to quash a summons to examine its counsel and to strike an expert affidavit.

KSP's underlying motion sought to stay the action due to Tallman Truck Centre Limited's (Tallman) alleged late disclosure of a litigation agreement with co-defendant Secure Capital Advisors Inc. The court found that the Master erred by allowing the examination of opposing counsel and admitting expert evidence on issues irrelevant to the abuse of process analysis, which, according to Handley Estate, focuses on immediate disclosure and does not require proof of prejudice.

The appeal was granted, quashing the summons and striking the affidavit.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that found their professional negligence action was not statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the respondent neither knew nor ought to have known that its loss was caused by the appellants' acts or omissions.

The plaintiffs, investors in mutual funds managed by Crystal Wealth, lost their life savings due to fraud by the fund's management.

They sought to certify a class action in negligence against BDO Canada LLP, the fund's auditor, alleging that BDO's failure to conduct proper audits delayed the discovery of the fraud.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding it plain and obvious that the plaintiffs' pleading did not disclose a legally viable cause of action.

Applying established jurisprudence, the court held that BDO did not owe a proximate duty of care to the individual investors for their pure economic losses.

The moving parties sought to quash an appeal of an application judge's order that had granted their application under the Limited Partnerships Act to compel the responding parties to provide financial information.

The moving parties argued the order was interlocutory and therefore not appealable.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge's order was final, as it brought the application to an end and finally determined the moving parties' entitlement to financial information.

The motion to quash was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff sought leave to proceed with a class action for secondary market misrepresentation against a company and its officers.

The claims arose from an unauthorized investment made by the CEO, which was not fully disclosed in subsequent financial statements and press releases.

The court granted leave, finding a reasonable possibility that the CFO knew or deliberately avoided knowing about the unauthorized investment, and that a press release announcing the CEO's departure constituted a public correction, signaling concerns about the CEO's conduct related to the investment.

The appellant appealed an application judge's decision setting aside an arbitrator's award of $12.3 million in damages for lost profits.

The arbitrator had found that the respondent unlawfully terminated a purchase and management agreement by delivering a "Defunct Project Notice" in bad faith, thereby depriving the appellant of the value of awarded contracts.

The application judge had set aside the award, finding the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by awarding damages for lost profits, which were allegedly precluded by the contract's indemnity provisions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator acted within jurisdiction by interpreting and applying the substantive provisions of the contract, and that section 46(1)3 of the Arbitration Act permits only limited review for jurisdictional error, not review of the merits of the arbitrator's decision.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's professional negligence claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants, its accountants, should have detected an employee fraud earlier.

The court applied the discoverability principle under the Limitations Act, 2002, considering the professional relationship and the defendants' ameliorative efforts.

It found the limitation period did not begin until the plaintiff received independent accounting advice in January 2016, making the July 2017 action timely.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant, a disbarred lawyer whose licence was revoked on December 10, 2014, appealed two orders that permanently enjoined him from advertising, holding himself out, and practising as a lawyer in Ontario.

The appellant challenged the fairness of the proceedings and claimed various bases for his right to practise law.

The Court of Appeal upheld the permanent injunctions, finding that the appellant had clearly breached section 26.1 of the Law Society Act by continuing to hold himself out as a lawyer and offer legal services after his disbarment.

The court rejected all of the appellant's arguments regarding procedural fairness and his claimed rights to practise law.

This appeal concerns the interpretation and application of section 4 of the Interest Act to complex commercial loan agreements between ClearFlow Energy Finance Corp. and Solar Power Network Inc. The central dispute involves whether a "discount fee" of 0.003% per day and "administration fees" constitute interest within the meaning of the Interest Act, and whether the loan agreements comply with the statutory requirement to express interest as an annual rate or percentage.

The application judge found that the discount fee was interest, that the loan agreements failed to comply with section 4, and that all interest payable should be capped at 5% per annum.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the discount fee was properly annualized through a formula in the Loan Agreement, that the Loan Agreement complied with section 4, and that the appropriate remedy for non-compliance in the Promissory Notes was to limit only the non-compliant discount fee to 5%, not all interest payable.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion brought by defendant Atif Kamran to remove Siskinds LLP as counsel for plaintiffs Dan Andersson and LEO Canada Inc., and to compel document production.

The court awarded costs to Mr. Kamran, payable by Mr. Andersson alone, fixed at $17,000.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by Mr. Andersson and noting that the defendants' settlement offer was technically deficient and lacked clarity, thus not engaging the presumptive consequences of Rule 49.10.

The court also considered the broader context of the litigation and the inflammatory nature of some allegations made by Mr. Kamran.

Alectra Utilities Corporation sought to set aside an arbitration award of $12.3 million in favour of Solar Power Network Inc. (SPN), while SPN sought to enforce it.

The arbitration arose from a dispute over the termination of a Fee-In Tariff Programme agreement (PAMA) by Alectra's predecessor, PowerStream, which the arbitrator found to be in bad faith.

The court upheld the arbitrator's jurisdiction to consider bad faith in the exercise of a contractual right, finding that the PAMA's "sole discretion" and "not subject to dispute" clauses did not insulate bad faith termination.

However, the court found the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by awarding damages for loss of profits, as the PAMA explicitly excluded such damages for breaches of covenant, and SPN's claim was deemed a breach of an implied covenant of good faith.

Alectra's application to set aside the award regarding damages for loss of profits was granted, and SPN's application to enforce the award was denied.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) sought a statutory injunction to restrain the respondent, whose license had been revoked, from practicing law and providing legal services without a license.

The respondent argued that the LSO lacked authority to revoke his license, that immigration law practice was outside LSO's jurisdiction, that his activities fell under regulated professions or in-house counsel exceptions, and that he was authorized to commission affidavits or act through corporate vehicles.

The court dismissed all of the respondent's arguments, finding that he was indeed practicing law without a license and that his corporate entities were merely fronts for his unlicensed activities.

A permanent injunction was granted, and costs were awarded to the LSO.

This appeal concerns the interpretation and application of section 76(5)(e) of the Securities Act regarding insider trading and tipping liability for successive tippees.

The appellants received material non-public information about a takeover bid for Masonite International Corporation through a chain of tippers.

The core issue is whether successive tippees who did not have actual knowledge that their source was in a special relationship with the issuer "ought reasonably to have known" this fact.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Securities Commission's findings against Miller but reversed the Divisional Court's decision to overturn findings against Cheng, restoring the OSC's liability and sanctions determinations.

The appellants commenced a civil action for misfeasance in public office against a Canada Revenue Agency investigator and the Attorney General of Canada, alleging that the investigator had intentionally sworn a false Information to Obtain search warrants.

The action was discontinued on consent during trial after the appellants failed to establish key elements of their claim.

Approximately one month later, the appellants received Notices of Reassessment from the Minister of National Revenue reversing the original tax assessment.

The appellants moved to set aside the discontinuance based on these reassessments as fresh evidence.

The motion was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the reassessments could not establish the elements of misfeasance in public office and did not meet the high threshold for setting aside a consent discontinuance.