Stephany Mandin

The plaintiff, Ian McPherson, was hired as CEO and Ultimate Designated Person (UDP) of Global Growth Assets Inc. and Global RESP Corporation in August 2018.

His primary task was to bring the companies into compliance with Ontario Securities Commission orders following years of regulatory violations.

In January 2019, the board removed Ms. Hanane Bouji (chair and executive) from Mr. McPherson's supervision, reporting directly to the board instead.

Mr. McPherson repeatedly raised concerns that this decision interfered with his UDP obligations under Ontario securities law and violated the Commission's prior orders restricting Mr. Bouji's (the shareholder and Ms. Bouji's father) involvement in the company.

On February 28, 2019, the board terminated Mr. McPherson's employment without cause.

The court found that Global breached Part XXI.2 of the Ontario Securities Act by terminating Mr. McPherson's employment as a reprisal for his protected activity in expressing concerns about violations of Ontario securities law.

The court awarded Mr. McPherson $5,379,808.22 (two times his remuneration from termination to judgment date) plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest.

A franchisee, sued by a bank, issued a third-party claim against the franchisor seeking rescission of the franchise agreement for non-disclosure under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The franchisor argued that the third-party claim did not constitute proper notice of rescission.

The motion judge agreed, ruling that a pleading could not serve as the required notice.

The lawyer who drafted the third-party claim appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a pleading, specifically a third-party claim, could constitute sufficient written notice of rescission under s. 6 of the Arthur Wishart Act.

The court emphasized a generous interpretation of the remedial legislation, prioritizing substance over form, and clarified that the purpose of the notice is to advise the franchisor of rescission, not to act as a precondition to litigation.

Third Line Homes Inc., a custom home builder, brought a motion for summary judgment against Patricia Grant for outstanding payments on a home construction agreement.

Grant defended on the basis of incomplete work, deficiencies including moisture and mould in the basement, and argued that the dispute should be subject to arbitration under the Ontario New Homes Warranties Plan Act (ONHWPA).

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that Grant had not properly brought a motion to stay the action for arbitration, but also that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the completion of the house, the alleged deficiencies, and the need for expert evidence on moisture and mould.

This motion, brought under Rule 21.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, sought a determination of a question of law: whether a claim in a pleading (specifically, a Third Party Claim) constitutes proper notice under section 6(3) of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure) 2000.

The franchisee (Shearer) and franchisor (The Works) argued that the pleading was not proper notice, while the franchisee's former lawyer (Msi), who was being sued for negligence for failing to provide proper notice, argued that it was.

The court found that a Rule 21 motion was appropriate and, following binding authority and legal principle, concluded that a Third Party Claim cannot constitute a proper notice of rescission under subsection 6(3) of the Wishart Act, as a pleading and a statutory notice serve distinct purposes and have different temporal and functional implications.

TIF Mechanical Limited claimed a construction lien of $471,312.17 against the Owners for renovation work.

The Owners denied the claim, alleging overpayment, incomplete and unauthorized work, and counterclaimed for $500,000.

The court found that the parties had a series of individual contracts, initially fixed-price, then primarily verbal time-and-material agreements, rather than an overarching fixed-price general contract as alleged by the Owners.

The court largely accepted TIF's invoices as reflecting the agreed-upon price and found the Owners' credibility lacking regarding a budget limit.

While some deficiencies were found, the Owners' counterclaim for unauthorized work, zoning variance costs, completion costs, general damages, bad faith, and loss of opportunity was dismissed.

TIF was awarded $377,277.82 plus prejudgment interest.

The applicant, a restaurant server, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy) after her employer terminated an accommodation plan, failed to accommodate her pregnancy, and stopped scheduling her for shifts.

The applicant had initially been accommodated by the General Manager by being scheduled to work in the main floor bar area instead of the second-floor dining room to avoid stairs.

When the co-owner returned from maternity leave, she changed the schedule, moving the applicant back to the dining room.

Despite the applicant providing medical confirmation of her need for accommodation, the co-owner refused to schedule her in the bar area, citing unwritten policies and an awkward interaction with patrons from a year and a half prior.

The Tribunal found that the respondents unilaterally withdrew the accommodation plan without establishing undue hardship, failed in their procedural and substantive duty to accommodate, and constructively dismissed the applicant by failing to schedule her for shifts.

The Tribunal awarded $4,170.60 for lost wages and tips, and $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss portions of a civil action alleging damages arising from the disclosure of confidential taxpayer information by a government employee to police during an arson investigation.

The estate of the deceased plaintiff alleged reputational harm, loss of property, and Charter breaches.

The court held that the cause of action relating to damage to property arose before the deceased’s discharge from bankruptcy and therefore vested in the bankruptcy trustee under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

As a result, the estate lacked legal capacity to pursue claims relating to property loss.

The court dismissed those claims but allowed the personal claim for damage to reputation to proceed to trial, while striking Charter breach allegations that could not survive the claimant’s death.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside a default judgment in a construction lien action.

The action against the appellant was based on a personal guarantee of a corporate defendant's obligations.

The Divisional Court upheld the master's decision, finding that service by registered mail complied with the Construction Lien Act.

The court also agreed that the appellant failed to meet the three-pronged test to set aside a default judgment, specifically failing to provide a plausible explanation for the default and delaying eight months before bringing the motion.

The appeal was dismissed.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that Universal Settlements International Inc. (USI) traded in securities without registration or a prospectus by offering viatical products to investors.

The central issue was whether these viatical products—fractional interests in the death benefits of life insurance policies—constituted 'investment contracts' under s. 1(1) of the Securities Act.

Applying the Howey and Pacific Coast tests, the Commission found that the products involved an investment of funds with a view to profit in a common enterprise, where profits were derived from the undeniably significant efforts of USI and its agents.

Consequently, the viatical products were deemed securities, requiring USI to comply with the Act's registration and prospectus requirements.