3 total
Motions to allocate disgorged funds to specific investors dismissed; Commission lacks jurisdiction to order individual restitution.
Multiple groups of investors and the respondents brought motions before the Ontario Securities Commission seeking to revoke Freeze Directions, allocate disgorged funds to specific investors, and facilitate the sale of frozen real property.
The respondents also sought to vary the disgorgement amount or set aside the previously approved settlement agreement.
The Commission dismissed the motions, holding that it lacks adjudicative jurisdiction to order restitution to individual investors or to vary an approved settlement agreement.
The Commission noted that the allocation of disgorged funds is an administrative function and directed Staff to apply to the Superior Court of Justice for directions on distributing the frozen funds and facilitating the sale of the real estate.
Motion for leave to appeal substantial indemnity costs order dismissed; high threshold for intervention not met.
The moving parties sought leave to appeal a costs order of $35,387.53 awarded on a substantial indemnity basis.
The motion judge had found their conduct in ignoring disclosure obligations to be reprehensible.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's factual findings and discretionary costs award.
Costs of the motion were fixed at $4,500 payable by the moving parties.
Motion to dismiss action for abuse of process and discovery breaches denied; plaintiff ordered to post security and provide further productions.
The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action for abuse of process and breach of a court order requiring attendance at discovery and production of documents, or alternatively to strike a notice on title and compel further productions.
The plaintiff cross-moved to extend the time for discovery after his visa to enter Canada was refused.
The Master found the plaintiff's failure to attend discovery was explained and his document production, while deficient, showed substantial compliance.
The Master dismissed the motion to dismiss the action and the motion to strike the notice on title, finding no abuse of process and lacking jurisdiction to strike the notice.
The plaintiff was granted an extension for discovery but ordered to post security and provide a further and better affidavit of documents.
