Symon Zucker

The plaintiffs invested $50 million in a Russian oil and gas joint venture, relying on representations made by the defendants regarding the involvement of another major investor and the status of the corporate vehicles.

The plaintiffs later discovered that the corporate vehicles were sham public companies, the other investor had not funded its portion, and the defendants had engaged in stock manipulation and unauthorized issuance of free-trading shares.

The plaintiffs sued for deceit, breach of fiduciary duty, and unlawful conspiracy.

The defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract, inducing breach of contract, and malicious prosecution.

The Superior Court of Justice found several defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy, awarding substantial damages to the plaintiffs.

The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, imposing conditions on the applicants' registrations, including prohibitions on false advertising, requirements for Registrar approval of advertisements, and restrictions on the involvement of unregistered individuals in the dealership.

The Registrar appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering the registration of the respondent as a motor vehicle salesperson with conditions.

The Registrar had proposed to refuse registration due to the respondent's failure to supervise employees who committed extensive fraud, resulting in unpaid liens, taxes, and consumer complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded that while the respondent was guilty of lax supervision, he was a victim of fraud and his personal honesty and integrity were not stained.

The Court also admitted fresh evidence of the respondent's guilty pleas to corporate tax offences but held it would not have changed the Tribunal's decision.

The Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, moved for leave to adduce fresh evidence on an appeal from a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal had ordered the Registrar to register the respondent as a salesperson.

The fresh evidence consisted of court records and Canada Revenue Agency documents concerning tax proceedings and charges against the respondent for failing to file corporate returns.

The Divisional Court applied the Palmer test and admitted the fresh evidence, finding it was credible, relevant to a potentially decisive issue, and could reasonably have affected the result.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which refused to allow them to carry on their motor vehicle sales business pending a fresh licence application.

The applicants had negligently failed to renew their licences before expiry.

The Divisional Court held that the Vice Chair's decision was reasonable and that the Registrar had no obligation to permit them to operate while unlicensed.

Furthermore, the court found the judicial review application to be premature as it did not meet the test for reviewing interlocutory tribunal decisions.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, imposing conditions on the applicant's registration, including obligations regarding disclosure of vehicle history, odometer readings, and restrictions on his role within a dealership for five years.

The Applicants brought a motion for an interim order permitting them to carry on business as a motor vehicle dealer pending a hearing into the Registrar's proposal to refuse their registration renewal.

The Applicants had filed their renewal application two days after the expiry date.

They argued that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant interim registration based on statutory interpretation, natural justice, and the power to prevent abuse of process.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no denial of natural justice or abuse of process, and concluding it lacked jurisdiction to substantively vary the Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration into a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration.

The appellants appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision directing the revocation of their motor vehicle inspection station and mechanic registrations.

They argued the Tribunal erred in weighing historical allegations and denied procedural fairness through undue interference during the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably considered the appellants' entire course of conduct, including 22 recent allegations of malfeasance, and that the Tribunal's interventions to clarify technical evidence did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The moving defendants sought an order compelling the plaintiffs to answer discovery questions and produce documents concerning communications with their solicitors regarding reliance on a lawyer’s email about the completion of an equity raise in a financing transaction.

The defendants argued that because the plaintiffs pleaded reliance on representations concerning the equity financing, solicitor-client privilege over related communications had been waived.

The court held that privilege is waived only where a party makes the receipt of legal advice a substantive element of its claim or defence.

The plaintiffs relied on factual representations in correspondence rather than on legal advice received from their counsel.

As a result, no express or implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege occurred and the motion to compel further discovery was dismissed.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for payment of shipped merchandise, the parties disputed the appropriate interest rate on the judgment amount.

The plaintiff relied on a 2% per month interest notation printed on its invoices.

The court held that the unilateral notation on invoices did not establish an agreement to that interest rate, particularly given the parties’ prior course of dealing where interest had not been charged.

In the absence of an agreement, the presumptive statutory interest rate under the Courts of Justice Act applied.

The court ordered that both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest be calculated at the statutory rate as simple interest.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim regarding a parking space, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57, including the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party and the proportionality of the value of the parking space in dispute.

The defendants were awarded costs fixed at $28,000, inclusive of interest and taxes.

The applicants appealed a proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to revoke their Motor Vehicle Inspection Station (MVIS) Type 6 licence and mechanic registration.

The Director alleged the applicants issued Structural Inspection Certificates for vehicles that did not meet prescribed standards, submitted false insurance estimates, and failed to comply with regulations.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicants consistently failed to perform competent inspections, submitted fraudulent documents, and put unsafe vehicles on the road.

The Tribunal directed the Director to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.

The applicant, a former volunteer firefighter, filed a human rights application alleging gender discrimination and harassment between 2002 and 2006.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period set out in section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred well before the application was filed in March 2010.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and therefore the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was hired as a full-time receptionist at the respondents' salons.

On her first day of work, she disclosed that she was four and a half months pregnant.

Shortly after, her employment was terminated.

The respondents claimed she was fired because she requested part-time hours, which they could not accommodate.

The Tribunal found the respondents' explanation lacked credibility and concluded that the applicant's pregnancy was a factor in her termination.

The Tribunal awarded damages for lost wages, lost maternity benefits, and injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondents to implement a written policy on accommodating pregnant employees.

The appellant appealed an order finding that its solicitor, retained to discharge a mortgage, fraudulently diverted the respondent's repayment funds to himself.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge's findings were well supported by the record.

The respondent sold an automobile to Crown Leasing Ltd., who took possession and presented a cheque that was subsequently dishonoured.

The application judge held that title did not pass.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the application judge erred in law, holding that the usual inference that title passes with possession should have been drawn.

However, because the application judge did not decide whether the appellants were innocent third-party purchasers for value, and the evidence was conflicting, the Court set aside the judgment and directed a trial of that issue.

The appellant oral surgeon appealed a trial judgment enforcing a handwritten non-competition clause that barred him from practising within five miles of the respondent's office for three years after leaving an associate position.

The Court of Appeal held that although the respondent had some proprietary interest in regular referring dentists, this was not an exceptional employment case justifying a broad non-competition covenant.

Applying the governing framework for restrictive covenants in employment contracts, the court emphasized that non-competition clauses will generally not be enforced where a non-solicitation clause would adequately protect the employer's legitimate interests.

The appellant's role was that of a junior associate, he did not personify the practice, and no confidential information or trade secrets justified the broader restraint.

The appeal was allowed, the action dismissed, and costs awarded to the appellant.

The appellant operated a telephone sales 'boiler room' in Toronto, fraudulently inducing United States residents to purchase worthless shares in Central American mining companies.

The victims sent their money to Central America, and the appellant brought a portion of the proceeds back to Canada.

The appellant challenged his committal for trial on the basis that the essential element of the fraud (the deprivation) occurred outside Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, establishing that Canadian courts have jurisdiction over transnational offences if there is a 'real and substantial link' between the offence and Canada, which was satisfied by the scheme being devised and operated in Toronto.