Stacey Reisman

The Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondent engaged in illegal insider trading by purchasing shares of a target company while possessing material non-public information obtained through his employment.

The parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the respondent admitted to the misconduct.

The Capital Markets Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it reasonable and in the public interest.

The respondent was ordered to pay an administrative penalty of $235,000, investigation costs of $22,336.27, and was subjected to ten-year market bans and a reprimand.

The court addressed two pretrial motions: one seeking to stay a counterclaim based on abuse of process due to delayed disclosure of a cooperation agreement, and another seeking leave for third-party discovery.

The motion to stay was dismissed, as the immediate disclosure rule for settlement agreements was found not to apply to agreements with non-parties.

The motion for third-party discovery was granted, with the court finding the non-party's evidence critical and that the cooperation agreement constituted a constructive refusal to provide information, making a pretrial examination necessary for trial fairness.

The plaintiffs sought to enforce an "Outline of Terms of Settlement" reached during mediation, arguing it constituted a binding agreement.

The defendants contended that the Outline was not intended to be enforceable and lacked essential terms.

The court found that the Outline did not objectively reflect a mutual intention to create a binding agreement and that numerous material issues, including debt reallocation, minority shareholder rights, and tax implications of asset transfers, remained unresolved.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing that it cannot create a contract for parties where essential terms are missing.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against seven discount brokers, alleging that their receipt of mutual fund trailing commissions prior to the 2022 prohibition was illegal.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the 'some evidence' requirement to show that the practice contravened applicable Canadian securities law.

The evidence filed by the plaintiffs themselves demonstrated that the practice, while controversial, was not illegal before the regulatory amendments took effect.

The motion for certification was dismissed.

The defendants in two related actions sought orders to compel the plaintiffs, Andrew Stronach and Selena Stronach, to undergo medical examinations to assess their mental capacities for the purpose of determining if litigation guardians were required.

The court dismissed the motion against Selena Stronach, finding insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of capacity.

The motion against Andrew Stronach was dismissed without prejudice, as the court found it premature and suggested other discovery avenues should be pursued first.

The court also declined to order production of video recordings of Andrew's examination for discovery.

The plaintiffs, Andrew and Selena Stronach, brought motions to strike out portions of the defendants' Fresh as Amended Statements of Defence under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs argued that the impugned pleadings improperly referenced documents and communications that were subject to settlement privilege arising from a confidential judicial mediation.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had waived privilege or that an exception applied based on the justice of the case.

The court found that the mediation was subject to settlement privilege, the plaintiffs had not waived the privilege, and no exception applied.

The court granted the motions to strike the pleadings relating to the mediation.

The court also struck out portions of one defendant's pleading as scandalous, but dismissed a motion to require another defendant to reinstate a withdrawn admission.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the February 12, 2021 decision of McEwen J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondents.