Simon Bieber

The defendants moved to amend their statement of defence and for an order requiring the plaintiff to post further security for costs.

The plaintiff, who claimed to be impecunious, had previously been ordered to post a modest amount of security.

The defendants discovered that the plaintiff had entered into an assignment agreement with a paralegal corporation to fund the litigation in exchange for 15% of any recovery.

The court allowed the amendments to the statement of defence.

The court also found that the plaintiff failed to disclose the funding agreement on the initial motion, breaching the duty of candour required when pleading impecuniosity.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court ordered the plaintiff to post further security for costs in staged amounts.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for the appointment of an investigator under the Business Corporations Act.

They argued the motion judge erred by failing to determine if a prima facie case of oppressive conduct was established and by requiring them to prove oppression on the merits.

The court found the motion judge applied the correct test and that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general or public importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration of oppression and the appointment of an inspector under ss. 161 and 248 of the OBCA to investigate the defendants' companies involved in two condominium development projects.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing under s. 161 as they were not beneficial shareholders, and failed to establish a prima facie case of oppression under s. 248.

The court also held that appointing an inspector was inappropriate as the costs would significantly outweigh the benefits, and the plaintiffs already had access to extensive financial information.

The applicants brought a motion to set aside the discontinuance of their action for misfeasance in public office against the respondents.

The action was discontinued after three days of trial following a settlement.

The applicants sought to adduce new evidence, specifically Canada Revenue Agency re-assessments from January 2016 that allowed their tax objections, arguing these constituted exceptional circumstances.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the new evidence did not meet the criteria for setting aside a discontinuance, as it did not refer to events leading to the action and would not have changed the original outcome or proven misfeasance.

The court also addressed the inapplicability of res judicata and issue estoppel regarding findings from prior criminal proceedings.

The moving party, a former CFO of a company undergoing CCAA restructuring, sought a declaration that a court-approved settlement and release barred the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPAO) from commencing disciplinary proceedings against him.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the CPAO's regulatory proceedings regarding professional misconduct did not constitute a 'claim' under the CCAA, nor were they claims against him in his capacity as a director or officer.

Furthermore, the disciplinary proceedings did not fall within the definition of released claims in the settlement order, and the CPAO was not bound by the order as it had not received notice.

The Ontario Securities Commission issued its decision on sanctions and costs following a merits decision that found the respondents contravened the Securities Act by engaging in insider trading and tipping.

The respondents included a mergers and acquisitions lawyer who instigated the tipping scheme and several investment advisors who traded on and further disseminated the material non-public information.

The Commission imposed 10-year trading bans, permanent or 10-year director and officer bans, and 10-year registration bans for the investment advisors.

The Commission also ordered disgorgement of profits totaling $84,698, administrative penalties totaling $2,150,000, and costs of $500,000 apportioned among the respondents based on their respective culpability and involvement in the proceedings.

The applicants, claiming to be victims of a Ponzi scheme, sought a disclosure order under section 17 of the Securities Act to obtain transcripts and materials from a Commission investigation.

They sought these materials to assist in a civil action against their former lawyers, alleging breach of fiduciary and professional duties during the investigation.

The Commission found that, unlike typical cases where disclosure is sought against the subjects of an investigation, the applicants sought disclosure against their own lawyers regarding their conduct before the Commission.

Finding no appreciable confidentiality interest remaining and no risk to the concluded investigation, the Commission held it was in the public interest to authorize disclosure of the section 13 transcripts and related communications.

The appellants appealed an order striking their statement of claim under Rule 21.01 based on the expiry of a limitation period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred because a plaintiff is not obligated to plead discoverability until a statement of defence pleading a limitation period is delivered.

The court also clarified that the exception allowing a claim to be struck for a limitation period prior to a defence is confined to cases with no legal or factual complexities.

The respondents Miller, Azeff, and Bobrow brought non-suit motions to dismiss certain allegations of insider trading and tipping at the close of Staff's case.

The Commission dismissed Miller's motions regarding Masonite and Dynatec, but granted his motion to strike an allegation regarding Dynatec as barred by the six-year limitation period.

Bobrow's motion regarding MDSI was granted as Staff failed to make out a prima facie case.

Azeff's motions regarding Dynatec and MDSI were dismissed, as Staff's evidence gave rise to reasonable inferences supporting the allegations.

The appellant operated a property management business and appeared before the Landlord and Tenant Board on behalf of property owners without a paralegal license.

The Law Society obtained a permanent injunction prohibiting him from providing legal services.

On appeal, the appellant argued he was a 'landlord' under the Residential Tenancies Act and thus entitled to self-represent.

The Court of Appeal held that even if he met the definition of a landlord, he was providing legal services to third parties and had no right to self-represent under the Law Society Act.

The appeal was dismissed, but the injunction was narrowed to allow him to appear before the board only when he is the actual owner of the property.

The plaintiff vendor sold a property to the defendant purchaser under an agreement that included a $550,000 bonus payable if the purchaser obtained a 'favourable decision' on its 'current application' for rezoning to permit a supermarket.

The purchaser appealed the town's refusal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) but ultimately settled for a zoning amendment that permitted retail use but not a supermarket.

The plaintiff sued for the bonus.

The court held that the bonus clause was triggered because the purchaser achieved the zoning it desired and urged upon the OMB, which constituted a 'favourable decision' on the appeal.

Following a merits hearing where the respondents were found to have engaged in unregistered trading, illegal distribution of securities, and fraud, the Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to determine sanctions and costs.

The Commission ordered permanent market bans, significant administrative penalties, and disgorgement against the directing minds of the fraudulent scheme.

The salesperson respondents received market bans ranging from 5 to 10 years, along with administrative penalties and disgorgement orders equal to the commissions they earned.

Costs were also apportioned among the respondents.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking judgment enforcing a settlement agreement allegedly reached through email correspondence.

The respondents argued the purported settlement was conditional upon financial documentation substantiating specific “inflows and outflows” related to investments in a failed business venture and that the documentation provided did not support those representations.

The court held that the moving party bears a heavy burden on a Rule 49.09 motion and that the motion should be approached similarly to summary judgment, requiring the absence of genuine issues for trial.

Given conflicting affidavit evidence, disputed financial records, and credibility issues regarding losses, inventory values, and completeness of production, the court concluded that a full appreciation of the evidence required a trial.

The court therefore declined to enforce the alleged settlement.

The plaintiffs sued their former lawyers for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the duty of loyalty, alleging the lawyers facilitated a Ponzi scheme and failed to disclose the plaintiffs' interests during an Ontario Securities Commission investigation while representing other clients.

The defendant lawyers moved to strike portions of the statement of claim, arguing their statements and omissions before the OSC were protected by the doctrine of absolute privilege.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it is not plain and obvious that absolute privilege immunizes a lawyer from a client's claim for breach of loyalty based on statements made while representing different clients in a quasi-judicial proceeding.

The applicant sought a permanent injunction restraining the respondent, a property manager who regularly appeared before the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board on behalf of landlords, from providing legal services without a licence.

The respondent argued he was entitled to appear as a landlord’s “personal representative” within the definition of “landlord” under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The court held that appearing before a tribunal as a paid representative to make submissions and examine witnesses constitutes the provision of legal services requiring a licence under the Law Society Act.

The term “personal representative” in the Residential Tenancies Act was interpreted in its traditional estates law sense and does not include a paid property manager.

A permanent injunction was issued restraining the respondent from providing legal services without a licence.

The appellant appealed an order striking his claim against the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's decision and concluding that the constitutional challenge could not succeed.

The Court also denied leave to amend the claim, holding that it was plain and obvious the claim was doomed to fail.

In CCAA restructuring proceedings, shareholder class action plaintiffs sought to limit the scope of a stay of proceedings so that certification, leave, and amendment motions in related Ontario and Quebec securities class actions could proceed against auditors, underwriters, and former directors.

The court applied the established test for lifting a CCAA stay, considering relative prejudice, balance of convenience, and the merits.

Given the pending appeal concerning whether shareholder claims constituted “equity claims” under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the imminent creditor meeting regarding a proposed plan of arrangement, the court found that maintaining the stay temporarily would avoid prejudice and promote orderly proceedings.

The court held that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the stay so that the auditors and underwriters could focus on the appeal and restructuring process.

The motion to limit the stay was dismissed without prejudice to renewal after the creditor meeting.

The appellant appealed an order finding him in civil contempt and sentencing him to 42 days in jail and a $40,000 fine for refusing to answer questions during an examination in aid of execution.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge did not err in refusing an adjournment, that the appellant knew which answers were inadequate, and that continued disobedience of court orders justifies incremental penal sanctions.

The sentence was upheld as reasonable given the appellant's repeated and flagrant disregard for the court's authority.

The defendant law society brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a statement of claim without leave to amend on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff sought declarations challenging the law society’s regulatory authority over paralegals, alleging anti‑competitive conduct contrary to the Competition Act, bad faith regulation, and a violation of a constitutional right to access affordable justice.

The court held that the Competition Act does not apply to the actions of a provincial regulatory body acting within its statutory mandate and that compliance with validly enacted provincial legislation is presumed to be in the public interest.

The court further relied on Supreme Court of Canada authority confirming there is no broad constitutional right to access legal services.

The statement of claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

In a proposed securities class action alleging misrepresentations in the primary and secondary markets, the plaintiffs sought an order compelling defendants to deliver statements of defence and requested that the certification motion be heard together with a leave motion under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act.

The defendants opposed delivering defences before certification and sought a sequence of motions beginning with the leave motion, followed by Rule 21 motions and then certification.

The court held that pleadings should generally be completed before certification and that ordering the delivery of a statement of defence was not contrary to law or due process.

However, the court limited the requirement to defendants who filed affidavits under s. 138.8(2) of the Securities Act, while permitting other defendants to plead voluntarily without losing the ability to bring Rule 21 motions.

The court further ordered that the leave motion and certification motion be heard together to avoid delay, inefficiency, and serial appeals.