20 LEXPERT
|
2016
|
WWW.LEXPERT.CA
Gordon, Carolena Clyde & Co Canada LLP
(514) 764-3664 carolena.gordon@clydeco.ca
Has extensive experience in a broad range of commercial litigation and
insurance matters handling multi-party and large-scale disputes, particularly
the defence of construction professionals, their firms and insurers. A creative
problem-solver, her practice also focuses on technology errors & omissions,
cyber liability and data privacy, D&O liability, risk management and class
action defence.
Goldman, QC, Calvin S. Goodmans LLP
(416) 597-5914 cgoldman@goodmans.ca
Chair, Goodmans's Competition, Antitrust and Foreign Investment Group.
Former Commissioner, Competition Bureau. Practice focuses on domestic
and international mergers, abuse of dominance, cartels, reviewable mat-
ters and foreign investment reviews under the ICA. Ranked by Law Business
Research in top tier of Canadian competition lawyers and as "Canada's most
highly distinguished competition lawyer."
Glendinning, Deborah A. Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
(416) 862-4714 dglendinning@osler.com
Ms. Glendinning specializes in defending multi-jurisdictional complex class
actions and commercial matters and providing business-critical strategic
litigation advice, primarily in the areas of product liability, banking and
financial services.
Gelowitz, Mark A. Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
(416) 862-4743 mgelowitz@osler.com
Mr. Gelowitz's civil and securities litigation, appellate and international
arbitration practice in various provinces across Canada embraces M&A litiga-
tion, D&O liability, shareholder disputes, corporate governance, oppression,
defamation, product liability, mining and class action matters.
Garland, Steven Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh
(613) 232-2486 sbgarland@smart-biggar.ca
With over 20 years of experience, Mr. Garland specializes in IP litigation of
all types including patent, trademark, copyright, industrial designs, trade
secrets & competition law. He has appeared before the Federal & Supreme
courts as senior counsel in patent & trademark matters.
Gaikis, Gunars Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh
(416) 593-5514 ggaikis@smart-biggar.ca
With over 25 years of experience, Mr. Gaikis specializes in pharmaceutical
and biological patent litigation at trial and appeal, primarily for patentees,
in the Ontario, Federal and Supreme courts. He is a licensed pharmacist
as well as a patent and trademark agent.
LEXPERT-RANKED LAWYERS
witness lists and summaries. e second appear-
ance is to follow within 120 days of the first ap-
pearance, and the third appearance within the
following 60 days.
is practice guideline is a response to a trend
that Melissa MacKewn, a partner at Crawley
MacKewn Brush LLP in Toronto, called "the
proceduralization of [OSC] proceedings." She at-
tributes this increased length and complexity in
enforcement proceedings to the size of monetary
penalties the regulator has lately imposed for Se-
curities Act transgressions and to the one-way cost
regime, which gives OSC staff no incentive to
limit their requests for discovery.
e statutory maximums the OSC is able to
impose have not been raised lately, but in recent
insider-trading cases, for example, the penalties
imposed have been much steeper than in earlier
cases. "When the OSC fines $1 million, $2 mil-
lion for an individual, is it really to send a deter-
rent message to the market — or is it to punish
that person?" asks MacKewn. (A constitutional
challenge of the OSC's authority to order pay-
ments of up to $1 million per breach of the Securi-
ties Act failed in 2012 when the Ontario Court of
Appeal unanimously upheld the OSC's adminis-
trative penalties of more than $1.2 million against
Roger Rowan, Watt Carmichael Inc. and Harry
Carmichael in the Biovail insider trading case.)
As MacKewn explains it, "Because the mon-
etary stakes can be so high — they can effectively
put individuals out of business — respondents'
counsel are bringing more and more motions.
And because disclosure obligations are extremely
high and documentary disclosure so voluminous,
you end up with hundreds of thousands of docu-
ments in some cases.
"It's almost as if you're in civil court in terms of
the quality of materials that have to be presented
and the documents you have to review," she says.
"[But] I do think the commission has made sig-
nificant efforts to try to address those trends."
Another measure designed to encourage effi-
ciency in enforcement proceedings was the OSC's
introduction in March 2014 of no-contest settle-
ments in certain circumstances. Respondents of-
"They would drag it out, bring
motions, insist on disclosure
and go through a lengthy hearing
— or at least drag out the
discussions until they settled
the civil case. Now, with no-
contest settlements, you don't
have to admit wrongdoing. It's
a way to bring the regulatory
proceeding to a quicker
conclusion."
- Melissa MacKewn, Crawley MacKewn Brush LLP
