On July 31, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada provided clarity regarding the treatment of administrative monetary penalties and disgorgement orders resulting from securities violations in Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission).
Thalbinder Singh
Continue Reading 2024 Notable Cases (Part 5) – Supreme Court Clarifies Bankruptcy Treatment of Securities Penalties and Disgorgement Orders
On November 29, 2024, the Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba in WSIB Investments (Infrastructure) Pooled Fund Trust v. Plenary Group (Canada) Ltd., awarded over $259 million to the plaintiffs (an employee pension fund
Continue Reading 2024 Notable Cases (Part 4) – $259M Disgorgement Ordered for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
In the summer of 2024, Baker McKenzie obtained a trial judgment in fraud in CHU De Québec-Université Laval v. Tree of Knowledge International Corp. This decision provides clarity on the application of the “recklessness” standard
Continue Reading 2024 Notable Cases (Part 3) – Civil Fraud and Personal Liability Established by Finding that a Corporate Officer’s Conduct was Reckless
The bankruptcy of Aiden Pleterski, the self-proclaimed ‘Crypto King’ began on August 9, 2022, with a court application brought by Baker McKenzie on behalf of a group of investors. This case garnered significant media attention
Continue Reading 2024 Notable Cases (Part 2) – Bankruptcy of the Crypto-King and Related Rulings
As we enter 2025, we look back on five important decisions that made the news in 2024. Here is the the first case.
On October 11, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada released two decisions
Continue Reading 2024 Notable Cases (Part 1) – Supreme Court clarifies Corporate Attribution Doctrine
Mareva orders, also known as freezing orders, may be granted when there is a risk that a defendant might move its assets out of reach of the court’s jurisdiction. Mareva orders can freeze assets owned
Continue Reading Creditors seeking enforcement of claims to a Mareva defendant must come with clean hands
In Li et al. v. Barber et al., the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a motion by two “Freedom Convoy” organizers to release $200,000 of previously frozen funds needed to retain legal
Continue Reading Access Denied: Ontario Court Rejects “Freedom Convoy” Organizers’ Request to Access Frozen Funds for Legal Fees
In a recent Commercial List Decision, Justice Koehnen granted an injunction to prevent a party from enforcing a settlement agreement on the basis that the settlement had been induced by fraud.
Continue Reading Potential Pitfalls in Litigation Settlement – Agg v. Watson, 2021 ONSC 3068
In Amphenol Canada Corp v. Sundaram, 2020 ONSC 328 (“Amphenol Canada“), the Ontario Divisional Court confirmed that a prima facie showing of fraud and dissipation in the context of a Mareva injunction may have additional consequences for defendants, including presumed prejudice in terms of that defendant’s ability or inclination to satisfy future cost awards.
Continue Reading Impact of Mareva injunctions on alleged fraudsters
In Wescom Solutions Inc. v Minetto, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that the test for wilful blindness has the same standard in criminal and civil proceedings, which means asking whether a defendant was in fact suspicious and chose to ignore those suspicious, rather than whether defendant objectively should have been suspicious.
Continue Reading Re-seller of fraudulent goods found wilfully blind by Court of Appeal