Wendy Sun

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents engaged in illegal distribution of securities, unregistered trading, securities fraud, and improper revenue recognition, the Capital Markets Tribunal determined the appropriate sanctions and costs.

The Tribunal ordered disgorgement totaling $4.91 million, administrative penalties totaling $3.175 million, and significant market restrictions, including permanent bans for the GBR parties and multi-year bans for the First Global parties.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondents to pay costs totaling $1,080,285, apportioned based on their respective roles and the time spent investigating and litigating the various contraventions.

Following a merits decision finding the respondents perpetrated securities fraud, engaged in unregistered trading, and distributed securities without a prospectus, the Capital Markets Tribunal determined the appropriate sanctions and costs.

The Tribunal ordered disgorgement of $43.61 million against the primary individual respondents, with a reduced amount of $13 million for a less culpable respondent.

Administrative penalties totaling $3 million were imposed, along with permanent market participation bans for most respondents and a costs award of $600,000 to the Commission.

The moving defendants sought a temporary stay of the plaintiff's certification motion pending the determination of a certification motion in a related price-fixing class action involving different electronic components.

The defendants argued that a stay would promote efficiency as the expert evidence and methodology were substantially similar in both actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the actions involved different products, time periods, and parties, and that an indefinite delay would be unfair to the plaintiff class and contrary to the goals of judicial economy and access to justice.

The plaintiff in a proposed price-fixing class action regarding linear resistors brought motions to discontinue the action against six defendants and to certify the action for settlement purposes against the Kamaya defendants.

The court approved the discontinuance, finding no prejudice to the class as tolling agreements were in place and there was no evidence of the discontinued defendants' involvement in the conspiracy.

The court also certified the action for settlement purposes, approving an expanded class definition that included British Columbia purchasers to facilitate a comprehensive settlement with the Kamaya defendants.

This motion concerned the approval of class counsel's retainer agreement, fees, and disbursements following a partial settlement in a price-fixing class action.

The plaintiff class counsel sought approval for 25% of the settlement amount ($2.35 million) as fees, plus disbursements and interest.

The court reviewed the retainer agreements for compliance with the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and assessed the reasonableness of the fees and disbursements based on established factors.

The court approved the retainer agreements and the requested fees and most disbursements, but declined to approve interest on disbursements at this stage, pending further developments in the ongoing litigation.

The plaintiff sought court approval for a class action settlement agreement with the Panasonic defendants in a price-fixing conspiracy action concerning linear resistors.

The settlement included a monetary payment of $2,350,000 and significant cooperation from the Panasonic defendants to assist in prosecuting the action against non-settling defendants.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the arm's length negotiations, the benefits of cooperation, and the risks of continued litigation.

However, the court rejected a proposed term in the draft order that would allow class counsel to use settlement funds for future disbursements, citing concerns about retainer agreements and counsel's financial risks.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision striking out paragraphs from its statement of defence that pleaded the respondents' ulterior motive in bringing the action.

The respondents alleged breaches of representations and warranties and fraudulent conduct arising from a share purchase agreement for the acquisition of a European auto parts manufacturing business valued at $410 million.

The defendant claimed the respondents' true motive was to obtain an after-the-fact reduction in the purchase price due to their own financial difficulties, rather than to recover genuine damages for genuine wrongs.

The motion judge struck these allegations as irrelevant and frivolous and vexatious under rule 25.11(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and refused leave to amend.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination for the respondents' failure to provide an ASL interpreter during a meeting.

The application was filed more than one year after the incident.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was timely.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of discrimination occurred on August 8, 2014, making the October 6, 2015 application late under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal further found that the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2), as his reasons, including emotional challenges, uncorroborated ADD, and involvement in other legal proceedings, were insufficient to excuse the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The representative plaintiff in a proposed national class action alleged that multiple manufacturers conspired to fix prices of polyurethane foam and carpet underlay products.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking court approval of several negotiated settlement agreements with numerous defendants totaling approximately $29.28 million for the benefit of the class, along with cooperation provisions to assist claims against remaining defendants.

An objector argued that the settlements should not be approved until a distribution protocol and damages analysis were finalized.

The court held that settlement approval can properly occur before approval of a distribution protocol and that the negotiated settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given the complexity, litigation risk, and absence of meaningful objections.

The settlements were therefore approved.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims regarding intellectual property rights in software, arguing the claims were barred by a quitclaim agreement and the expiry of the limitation period.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that significant credibility issues existed regarding the execution and knowledge of the quitclaim, as well as the discoverability of the claim, which could not be resolved fairly using the enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04.

The matter was directed to proceed to trial in the normal course.