Continental Bank of Canada and Sprott Continental Holdings Ltd. v. Continental Currency Exchange Canada Inc.
CONTINENTAL BANK OF CANADA
SPROTT CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS LTD.
CONTINENTAL CURRENCY EXCHANGE CANADA INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Pape Chaudhury LLP
SCOTT PENFOUND
Law Firm / Organization
Pape Chaudhury LLP
TRACIE PENFOUND
Law Firm / Organization
Pape Chaudhury LLP
KYLE PENFOUND
Law Firm / Organization
Pape Chaudhury LLP
KOURTNEY PENFOUND
Law Firm / Organization
Pape Chaudhury LLP
MADISON PENFOUND
Law Firm / Organization
Pape Chaudhury LLP
ANGELA PENFOUND
Law Firm / Organization
Pape Chaudhury LLP
TRACIE & COMPANY LIMITED
Law Firm / Organization
Pape Chaudhury LLP
CONTINENTAL CURRENCY EXCHANGE CANADA INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Pape Chaudhury LLP
ERIC SPROTT
SPROTT INC.
SPROTT CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS LTD.
CONTINENTAL BANK OF CANADA
SHARON RANSON
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
JOHN TEOLIS
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
JIM RODDY
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
LARRY TAYLOR
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
JOHN JASON
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
JOHN LAHEY
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
PHIL WILSON
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
  • Parties Involved:

    • Sprott Parties: Continental Bank of Canada, Sprott Continental Holdings Ltd., Eric Sprott, and others.
    • Penfound Parties: Continental Currency Exchange Canada Inc. (CCEC), Scott Penfound, his family, and Tracie & Company Ltd.
  • Consolidated Actions:

    • Sprott Action (2016): Filed by Continental Bank against CCEC.
    • Penfound Action (2017): Filed by CCEC and the Penfound family against the Sprott Parties.
  • Permanent Stay (2022):

    • The Penfound Parties' claims were stayed permanently for accessing privileged documents belonging to the Sprott Parties, and they failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice.
    • Appeals by the Penfound Parties to lift the stay were dismissed by both the Ontario Court of Appeal (2023) and the Supreme Court of Canada.
  • Motion to Lift the Stay (2024):

    • The Penfound Parties moved to lift the stay and appoint F. Paul Morrison as a receiver and manager for their claims.
    • The court dismissed this motion, citing issue estoppel and a lack of new, external circumstances that would justify lifting the stay.
  • Key Legal Issues:

    • Issue Estoppel: The court found that the issue had already been decided by prior judgments, and there were no new developments that would change the initial conclusions.
    • Abuse of Process: Allowing the Penfound Parties to relitigate the stay issue would undermine judicial finality and fairness.
  • Conclusion:

    • The Penfound Parties’ motion was dismissed, and the court refused to appoint a litigation receiver as it would not remedy the unfair advantage gained by accessing privileged information.
    • No monetary award specified.
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
CV-16-0011306-00CL; CV-10011661-00CL
Corporate & commercial law
Other