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.

Firm/Organization: Baker McKenzie

Blogs: Canadian Fraud Law

Latest Articles

Canadian Fraud Law

Refrain is the Name of the Game: Supreme Court rules on Breach of Trust

By John Pirie & Glenn Gibson on May 22, 2019

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.…

Canadian Fraud Law

Supreme Court Confirms that Lawyer is Liable for Advising Clients to Invest in Fraudulent Scheme

By Ben Sakamoto & John Pirie on April 8, 2019

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…

Canadian Fraud Law

Supreme Court to Rule on Conflicting Rights of Investors in Fraudulent Schemes

By Glenn Gibson & John Pirie on January 29, 2019

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.…

Canadian Fraud Law

Piercing the Corporate Veil – the Need for Clear Fraudulent or Improper Conduct

By John Pirie & Ben Sakamoto on January 10, 2019

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,…

Canadian Fraud Law

Deferred Prosecution Agreements are coming to Canada. Are you prepared?

By Peter MacKay, Christopher Burkett & John Pirie on May 17, 2018

Join Baker Mckenzie’s global practitioners on Thursday, June 14 for a Deferred Prosecution Agreement Roundtable to gain important insights on: The impact that Bill C-74 will have on corporate criminal law in Canada; How the Canadian DPA system (which will be known as the Remediation Agreement Regime) will work in practice and how it will impact the Integrity Regime; The critical lessons learned from negotiating DPAs in other jurisdictions; Strategies for self-disclosure and dealing with parallel multinational investigations, multiple enforcement agencies, and global…

Canadian Fraud Law

When Should a Defendant Bring a Motion for Summary Judgment in Fraud Proceedings?

By Glenn Gibson & John Pirie on April 24, 2018

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 on the use of a constructive trust as a remedy for breach of fiduciary duty and third party fraud liability. In this post, we discuss the risk that comes with bringing a summary judgment motion in the context of…

Canadian Fraud Law

B.C. Court finds Civil Fraud by Omission in Wang v Shao

By Brendan O'Grady & John Pirie on April 3, 2018

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 by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Wang v Shao, 2018 BCSC 377. The case involved the aborted sale of a home in Vancouver’s upscale Shaughnessy neighbourhood for a purchase price of $6.138 million. After viewing the home,…

Canadian Fraud Law

Constructive Trust as a Remedy for Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Court of Appeal Clarifies Test for Granting Proprietary Remedies

By Glenn Gibson & John Pirie on March 12, 2018

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 Ronauld Walton. This post discusses the finding by the Court of Appeal that it was inappropriate for the application judge to have granted a constructive trust as a remedy for breach of fiduciary duty. The Court of Appeal set aside the…

Canadian Fraud Law

Stranger Danger: When Companies associated with a Fraudster should be Liable for the Fraudster’s Breach of Fiduciary Duty

By Glenn Gibson & John Pirie on February 20, 2018

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 in the breach of fiduciary duty and knowing receipt of trust property. This is the first of three posts in which we will report on recent decisions by the Ontario Court of Appeal arising out of a fraud that was found to…

Canadian Fraud Law

OSC engages in its first no-contest settlements

By John Pirie & David Gadsden on October 3, 2014

In a recent post, we explained that the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”) had declared its intention to move forward with “no-contest settlements.” These agreements would permit the settlement of enforcement proceedings without requiring the respondent to admit to any misconduct.…

John Pirie

Refrain is the Name of the Game: Supreme Court rules on Breach of Trust

Supreme Court Confirms that Lawyer is Liable for Advising Clients to Invest in Fraudulent Scheme

Supreme Court to Rule on Conflicting Rights of Investors in Fraudulent Schemes

Piercing the Corporate Veil – the Need for Clear Fraudulent or Improper Conduct

Deferred Prosecution Agreements are coming to Canada. Are you prepared?

When Should a Defendant Bring a Motion for Summary Judgment in Fraud Proceedings?

B.C. Court finds Civil Fraud by Omission in Wang v Shao

Constructive Trust as a Remedy for Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Court of Appeal Clarifies Test for Granting Proprietary Remedies

Stranger Danger: When Companies associated with a Fraudster should be Liable for the Fraudster’s Breach of Fiduciary Duty

OSC engages in its first no-contest settlements

Company

Support

New to the Network