Photo of John Pirie

John Pirie leads the Firm’s Canadian Litigation and Government Enforcement Group. He acts for clients in complex litigation and investigations. Mr. Pirie’s practice includes a significant fraud law and asset recovery component, often involving matters in the financial services industry. He routinely acts for our clients in coordination with other Baker McKenzie offices globally. Mr. Pirie has expertise concerning asset recovery strategies and emergency relief measures related to fraud, including Mareva injunctions, Anton Piller orders, Norwich Pharmacal orders, global asset tracing and fraudulent conveyance proceedings. Mr. Pirie has acted as lead counsel on an array of reported cases in this field, and he has been recognized in Lexpert’s Annual Guide to the Leading Canada/US Cross-Border Litigation Lawyers, and in the Legal 500 for Dispute Resolution (Canada). He appeared in the Supreme Court of Canada on a case ranked by Lexpert Magazine as Canada’s #1 business decision for 2007. Mr. Pirie has previously been named one of Lexpert’s Rising Stars, a “top 40” award that recognizes Canadian lawyers with an outstanding record of success.

Piercing the corporate veil remains a difficult feat in Ontario. Recently, in Cornerstone Properties v Southside Construction, Justice Hockin of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to pierce the corporate veil to hold a corporation liable for a costs award against its subsidiary. This decision reaffirms that courts will only pierce the veil where a corporation is being abused to the point where it is not functioning as a bona fide corporate entity, and instead is being used as a vehicle to facilitate fraudulent or improper conduct.
Continue Reading

On September 2, 2014, the Ontario Securities Commission commenced its high-profile hearing in the case of the Sino-Forest Corporation (“SFC“). SFC is alleged to have engaged in widespread fraud relating to its public financial disclosure. The specific allegations involve the fabrication or overestimation of revenue and assets, falsified evidence of ownership, backdated contracts, and undisclosed control over particular customers and suppliers.
Continue Reading

In October 2011, the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC“) raised the concept of offering no-contest settlements of the sort commonly employed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC“). On March 11th of this year, after receiving some sharply divided feedback in months of public hearings, the OSC announced that it was moving forward with the introduction of a policy that would permit settlement of enforcement proceedings without requiring an admission by the respondent of misconduct (no-contest settlements). The OSC has emphasized that the deployment of this policy will only be available in a narrow set of circumstances. In the meantime, the debate over whether such a policy can achieve its objectives of expedience and efficient resource allocation while at the same time avoiding the risk of letting wrongdoers off the hook, has yet to be resolved.


Continue Reading