In Godfrey v Pioneer, 2019 SCC 42 (“Godfrey“), the Supreme Court of Canada has lowered the bar for certifying price-fixing class actions brought under the federal Competition Act, while also allowing new categories of claimants to participate as class members.Continue Reading Supreme Court of Canada Lowers Bar to Certifying Price-Fixing Class Actions
On May 14, 2019, in Christine DeJong Medicine Professional Corp. v. DBDC Spadina Ltd., 2019 SCC 30 the Supreme Court of Canada granted Christine DeJong Medicine Professional Corporation’s appeal and unanimously adopted Justice van Rensburg’s dissenting reasons as their own. In reversing the earlier decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court has provided guidance on when a party will be found to have participated in a breach of trust.
Continue Reading Refrain is the Name of the Game: Supreme Court rules on Breach of Trust
Lawyers must act with care and uphold their professional obligations when making referrals. The Supreme Court of Canada recently addressed the professional liability of a lawyer who advised his client to purchase specific offshore investments from an advisor where that advisor turned out to be a fraudster. In Salomon v Matte‑Thompson, 2019 SCC 14, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal holding the lawyer liable for his client’s investment losses.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Confirms that Lawyer is Liable for Advising Clients to Invest in Fraudulent Scheme
On November 15, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Christine DeJong Medicine Professional Corporation’s (“DeJong”) application for leave to appeal from the decision in DBDC Spadina Ltd. v. Walton, 2018 ONCA 60. By granting leave, Canada’s highest court will weigh in on the liability of “victims” of fraud as against one another.
Continue Reading Supreme Court to Rule on Conflicting Rights of Investors in Fraudulent Schemes
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 Piercing the Corporate Veil – the Need for Clear Fraudulent or Improper Conduct
Join Baker Mckenzie’s global practitioners on Thursday, June 14 for a Deferred Prosecution Agreement Roundtable to gain important insights on:
Continue Reading Deferred Prosecution Agreements are coming to Canada. Are you prepared?
This is our third and final post on the complex fraud carried out by Norma and Ronald Walton, and the Ontario Court of Appeal decisions arising from their scheme. In our earlier posts, we focused
Continue Reading When Should a Defendant Bring a Motion for Summary Judgment in Fraud Proceedings?
We previously reported in an article last August that Ontario Courts are increasingly finding civil fraud on the basis of material omissions, as in the United Kingdom. This trend has continued in a recent decision
Continue Reading B.C. Court finds Civil Fraud by Omission in Wang v Shao
This is our second of three posts on the Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in DBDC Spadina Ltd. v. Walton 2018 ONCA 60 arising out of a complex fraud scheme perpetrated by Norma and
Continue Reading Constructive Trust as a Remedy for Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Court of Appeal Clarifies Test for Granting Proprietary Remedies
The decision in DBDC Spadina Ltd. v. Walton, 2018 ONCA 60 provides insight on when corporations that are de facto under control of a fraudster can be held liable for claims of knowing assistance
Continue Reading Stranger Danger: When Companies associated with a Fraudster should be Liable for the Fraudster’s Breach of Fiduciary Duty