Stephanie Voudouris

This decision concerns competing applications for declaratory relief between the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of Canada and the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America regarding membership and voting rights in the Canadian corporation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge’s finding that a 2015 bylaw creating two classes of members (one voting, one non-voting) remained in force, and that a subsequent attempt to restore voting rights to personal members via federal continuance was ultra vires without a special resolution.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

This decision resolves a dispute between the Canadian and American branches of the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council regarding the voting membership structure of the Canadian not-for-profit corporation.

The court found that the 2015 by-law, which created two classes of members with the U.S. entity as the sole voting member, remains in force.

The 2021 attempt to change the membership structure via federal articles of continuance was invalid, as it was not authorized by a special resolution of members.

The application by the Canadian company was dismissed, and a declaration was issued confirming the U.S. entity as the sole voting member.

The plaintiff brought a consent motion to certify a class proceeding against Haventree Bank for settlement purposes.

The action alleged that the bank breached legislation and contract terms by automatically renewing mortgages at higher interest rates, leading to additional costs for class members.

The court granted the certification, finding that all criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, including disclosure of a cause of action, an identifiable class, common issues, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, especially in the context of a settlement.

The court also approved the notice plan and the appointment of a Claims Administrator.

Consolidated Uranium Inc. (CUR) applied under section 182 of the Business Corporations Act for final court approval of a plan of arrangement to spin out Premier American Uranium Inc. (PUR).

The court had previously granted an interim order for a shareholder meeting, where the arrangement was overwhelmingly approved (99.96% of votes cast).

No shareholders exercised dissent rights.

The court applied the three-part test for arrangement approval, confirming that statutory procedures were met, the application was in good faith, and the arrangement was fair and reasonable, noting the strong shareholder approval and the fact that the arrangement did not impact proportionate ownership, thus not requiring a fairness opinion.

The final approval order was granted.

The moving parties were found by the Capital Markets Tribunal to have committed insider trading and tipping, resulting in market participation bans and significant financial penalties.

They appealed the Tribunal's decision and brought a motion for a stay of the sanctions pending their appeals.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the moving parties failed to establish irreparable harm.

The court also held that the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in enforcing securities regulations and maintaining market integrity.

The Capital Markets Tribunal issued its reasons and decision on sanctions and costs following a merits decision that found the respondents engaged in insider trading, tipping, and misleading Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission.

The Tribunal imposed significant market participation bans ranging from 3 to 15 years, administrative penalties totaling $2.95 million, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains totaling over $1.4 million, and costs of approximately $735,000.

The Tribunal emphasized the seriousness of insider trading and tipping, noting that such conduct undermines investor confidence and the integrity of the capital markets.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that Plateau Energy Metals Inc. made misleading statements in news releases and filings regarding the status of its mining concessions in Peru, and that its CEO and CFO authorized or acquiesced in these contraventions.

Staff also alleged the CEO made selective disclosure to certain shareholders.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement wherein the respondents agreed to pay administrative penalties totaling $750,000 and investigation costs totaling $300,000.

The Capital Markets Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it fell within a range of reasonable outcomes and was in the public interest.

The applicant, Royal Fox Gold Inc., sought court approval for a plan of arrangement with Northern Superior Resources Inc. under section 182 of the Business Corporations Act.

The court considered whether statutory procedures were met, the application was in good faith, and the arrangement was fair and reasonable, applying the test from *Re Magna International Inc.* and *BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders*.

The arrangement, which involved an exchange of shares and contingent value rights, received overwhelming shareholder approval.

The court found all requirements satisfied and granted the final approval order.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the motion judge dated April 24, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

This endorsement addresses three motions in an oppression action concerning the Paramount Group, a food services business facing shareholder deadlock.

The plaintiffs (Mohamad Fakih et al.) moved to strike portions of the defendants' counterclaim alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and for security for costs.

The defendants (AHM Investments Corporation et al.) moved for compliance with financial disclosure and the appointment of an auditor.

The court partially granted the motion to strike due to insufficient particulars of fraud.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed, as the counterclaim was inextricably linked to the defence and, at its core, an oppression remedy claim, which is exempt from security for costs under the OBCA.

The defendants' motion for financial disclosure and the appointment of an auditor was granted, affirming shareholders' mandatory right to audited financial statements, with the Paramount Group responsible for the audit fees.

Wilks Brothers, LLC applied for a review of a decision by TSX Inc. granting exemptive relief to Calfrac Well Services Ltd. The relief allowed Calfrac to retroactively correct a shareholder vote related to its recapitalization, in which votes from an ineligible shareholder (AIMCo) were inadvertently included.

The Commission found that Wilks had standing to bring the application as it was directly affected by the TSX decision.

However, the Commission dismissed the application on the merits, finding that the TSX did not consider irrelevant grounds, did not impose an illegal condition, did not overlook material evidence, and appropriately considered the public interest.

The Commission concluded that the agreement to rescind AIMCo's subscription was not an issuer bid under NI 62-104.

The moving parties, respondents in an insider trading and tipping enforcement proceeding, brought a motion seeking further documentary disclosure from Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission.

They requested all relevant, non-privileged investigator notes, internal communications, and a log of privileged documents.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the requested documents, including investigator notes and internal emails, constituted internal analysis, commentary, or opinion, which have no probative value and are therefore irrelevant.

The Commission also declined to order Staff to conduct a document-by-document relevance review or provide a privilege log, as no documents were withheld on the basis of privilege.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action for secondary market misrepresentation against the defendants under the Ontario Securities Act and common law.

The defendants brought motions to restrict the class to Canadians who purchased shares on the TSX, arguing that the Ontario court was forum non conveniens for Canadians who purchased on NASDAQ, and that American law should apply to those claims.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the defendants failed to show that the U.S. was a clearly more appropriate forum, and that the statutory cause of action under the Ontario Securities Act applies extra-territorially to Canadian purchasers on foreign exchanges.

The Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation brought a motion to vary an order of a single judge that dismissed its motion to stay a portion of certain Superior Court orders pending its application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no reviewable error in the single judge's application of the three-part test for a stay, including her conclusion that there was little likelihood of leave being granted and that irreparable harm was not established.

The appellant, Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation, appealed a decision regarding the calculation of amounts payable to the respondent non-utility generators under long-term power purchase agreements.

The dispute centered on whether a new government regulation reallocating the Global Adjustment Mechanism (GA) altered the calculation of Total Market Costs (TMC) under the agreements.

The application judge found that the new GA calculation was inconsistent with the definition of TMC, which required costs to be allocated pro rata to consumption.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge did not decide the case on an unargued issue, made no palpable and overriding factual errors, and properly interpreted the agreements without improperly implying a term.