Blog

VANCOUVER, BC / TheNewswire / March 9, 2025 / Bruush Oral Care Inc. (OTC Markets: BRSHF) (the "Company") today announces it has filed a Notice of Civil Claim (the "Claim") in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against certain former directors and officers of the Company, namely, Kia Besharat, Robert Ward, Brett Yormark, Mandeek Manhas and Alan MacNevin (collectively, the "Defendants"). &nbsp;The Claim alleges breach of fiduciary duty and negligence arising from the failure of the Defendants to detect or prevent the wrongful misappropriation of the Company's funds between November 2022 and May 2024 in an amount exceeding CAD $18,000,000.

Bruush Announces Commencement of Litigation against Former Directors and Officers

Four B.C. residents were indicted in the U.S. this week in connection to a series of "long-running international securities fraud schemes," according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of MassachusettsThe indictment alleges that the four Canadians – along with a former California attorney who is now believed to be residing in Mexico – generated "at least tens of millions in illicit proceeds" through "pump-and-dump" schemes.Frederick L. Sharp, 71, and Courtney M. Kelln, 43, have been charged with two counts each of securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud.Mike K.G. Veldhuis, 43, and Paul Sexton, 55, have been charged with one count each of the same charges.The fifth indicted person, 50-year-old Luis Carrillo, also faces one count of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud. He is the only one in the group who is not from B.C.All five are considered innocent until proven guilty.According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, the indictment alleges that Sharp "operated a sophisticated platform for at least six years that provided a variety of services to individuals seeking to conceal their identities in contravention of the securities laws when selling penny stock shares during pump-and-dumps."

Featured Article: 4 B.C. residents charged with running international 'pump-and-dump’ schemes - Frederick L. Sharp, Mike K.G. Veldhuis, Paul Sexton, Luis Carrillo

Young laptop user woman using computer, typing on keyboard

Jilted lovers, beware. Next time, you are thinking of sending a nasty note to your former friend, resist any temptation of sending a copy to anyone else. Otherwise, you might face the kind of libel suit Shaine Virani is currently dealing with.Believed to be the first e-mail libel case of its kind, the lawsuit filed in the British Columbia supreme court by Tasleem Suleman claims her former friend, Virani, libelled her in an e-mail sent to her on September 30 -- with copies to at least four others including her boss.She has not specified the damages, but those who know her believe she is not after money, but she certainly wants to see some punishment meted out to Virani.&nbsp;The claim filed last week by Ravi Hira, Suleman's lawyer, says Virani alleged that Suleman was 'a wicked, evil witch, who could not handle seeing people do better than her or having a better life than what she enjoyed.'&nbsp;Suleman also notes in the court papers that Virani falsely claimed she 'was a disgusting cheater, liar, a despicable and downright ugly human being' and 'was loyal to no one at all."&nbsp;Virani refused to comment. Her mother, who took calls for reporters, would not say if he has hired a lawyer.Legal experts believe the case could be a precedent making because unlike other Internet libel cases where a message was read by thousands, in this case only a handful had seen the message.Last year White House counsel Sydney Blumenthal filed a $ 30 million defamation lawsuit against Internet gossip columnist Matt Drudge after he posted allegations of spousal abuse against Blumenthal on the Drudge Report.&nbsp;"I would be surprised if an e-mail sent to four people could be considered in any sense like publication,'' said Richard Rosenberg, a computer science professor at the University of British Columbia, and vice-president of Electronic Frontier Canada, a group that advocates free speech on Internet. He told the Canadian media that if Internet users could be held legally liable for the veracity of every note they send, "it would seriously discourage the use of e-mail.''&nbsp;But Hira rejects the argument. He believes the number of people who read Virani's e-mail is not the issue. If the person's reputation is damaged, whether in the print or electronic or cyberspace media that person has the right to fight for his or her fair name, he believes.

Featured Article: e-mail Libel Suit Could Make History - Shaine Virani from North Vancouver

Shaine Virani, a name familiar in legal circles for her contentious history with defamation charges, finds herself in the legal crosshairs once more. The defendant, known for her alleged penchant for spreading falsehoods, is facing a fresh lawsuit in British Columbia Supreme Court (file#244133).This latest legal entanglement stems from allegations claiming that she propagated numerous false statements causing damages. &nbsp;Virani's legal woes are far from new. In a reminiscent narrative, she was previously sued for defamation as documented in a Rediff News article and Canadian court files (court file #C995203); a case which she was forced to settle.The contentious nature of Virani's legal battles underscores the gravity of the accusations against her and raises questions about her credibility and integrity. With a history marred by legal disputes and defamation allegations, the latest lawsuit against Virani adds another chapter to her tumultuous legal saga.As the legal proceedings unfold, stakeholders eagerly await the outcome, with the hope that justice will prevail and truth will triumph over falsehoods. Virani's repeated entanglements with the law serve as a cautionary tale about the repercussions of spreading misinformation and the importance of accountability in the digital age.

Featured Article: Defamation Suit - History in the Making (again) - Shaine Virani from North Vancouver - Repeat Offender

Visual contents concept. Social networking service. Streaming video. communication network.

This appeal is about whether bankruptcy releases persons from having to comply with certain orders imposed on them by a regulatory agency for having broken the law. Bankruptcy is a legal process through which a person can be released, or discharged, from having to pay certain debts, subject to conditions.Between 2007 and 2009, Thalbinder Singh Poonian and Shailu Poonian engaged in a scheme in which they manipulated the share price of a public oil and gas company called OSE Corp. and then sold the overpriced shares to investors. The scheme caused vulnerable investors to lose millions of dollars.&nbsp;In 2014, the British Columbia Securities Commission found that the Poonians had violated the province’s Securities Act. It eventually ordered them to pay $13.5 million in administrative penalties. Administrative penalties are consequences for having broken the law that are imposed by administrative tribunals or regulatory agencies instead of the courts. The Commission also ordered the Poonians to pay a further $5.6 million, representing the amounts they had obtained as a result of the scheme. These are called “disgorgement orders”.&nbsp;In 2018, the Poonians went into bankruptcy. Section 178(1) of the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act lists certain debts from which a person is not released through bankruptcy (debts that are “exempted from discharge”). The Commission asked the Supreme Court of British Columbia to decide whether the amounts owed to it by the Poonians would be exempted from discharge, based on this rule.&nbsp;The Supreme Court of British Columbia said that the orders would be exempted from discharge. It found that the exceptions in s. 178(1)(a) — relating to penalties “imposed by a court” — and in s. 178(1)(e) — relating to debt that results from “obtaining property or services by false pretences or fraudulent misrepresentation” — both applied.&nbsp;The Poonians’ appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal concluded that although the s. 178(1)(a) exception did not apply because the Commission’s decisions were not “imposed by a court”, the exception in s. 178(1)(e) did apply. The Poonians appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal in part. It has reversed the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the administrative penalties are exempted from discharge under s. 178(1)(e), while upholding its conclusion that the disgorgement orders are exempted.Orders to pay amounts that were obtained by fraud are directly linked to that fraud in a way that administrative penalties are not.Writing for the majority, Justice Côté held that neither the administrative penalties nor the disgorgement orders are exempted from discharge pursuant to s. 178(1)(a). The words “imposed by a court” in s. 178(1)(a) do not capture orders made by administrative tribunals or regulatory agencies, such as the Commission, that are subsequently registered as judgments of a court.&nbsp;In addition, the administrative penalties do not come within the exception in s. 178(1)(e), as they did not result directly from the fraudulent scheme; rather, they arose indirectly as a result of the Commission’s decision to sanction the Poonians. The disgorgement orders, however, are captured by the s. 178(1)(e) exception as there is a direct link between them and the Poonians’ fraudulent conduct. Therefore, they will not be released by any possible future order of discharge.July 31st, 2024.

The Supreme Court concludes that bankruptcy does not release people from orders to pay amounts obtained by fraud, but could release them from administrative penalties.

News online in phone. Reading newspaper from website. Digital publication and magazine mockup. Press feed with latest headlines in digital web portal.

This appeal addresses the circumstances in which the Crown can appeal an acquittal, the accused’s state of mind (or mens rea) required for second degree murder, and the elements required for self-defence.&nbsp;Mr. Hodgson attended a house party and was asked to help with removing another guest who refused to leave despite repeated requests to do so. A physical altercation ensued during which Mr. Hodgson used a chokehold to restrain the guest, who lost consciousness and died. Mr. Hodgson was charged with second degree murder.The trial judge found that it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hodgson caused the guest’s death by placing him in a chokehold. However, based on her assessment of the evidence, she acquitted Mr. Hodgson of second degree murder because the Crown failed to establish the requisite subjective mens rea. A second degree murder is a murder that is not planned and deliberate. She also found Mr. Hodgson not guilty of manslaughter. Manslaughter refers to a homicide committed as a result of a sudden provocation. The trial judge found that Mr. Hodgson’s defence of self-defence under s. 34 of the Criminal Code had an air of reality and that the Crown had failed to establish that the chokehold was not reasonable in all of the circumstances.&nbsp;The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal of the acquittal and directed that a new trial be held on the basis that the trial judge erred in law in her analysis of the mens rea for murder and the application of self-defence to manslaughter. Mr. Hodgson appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal.

Canadian Legal Matters

Featured Articles

Bruush Announces Commencement of Litigation against Forme...

Featured Article: 4 B.C. residents charged with running i...

Featured Article: e-mail Libel Suit Could Make History - ...

Featured Article: Defamation Suit - History in the Making...

The Supreme Court concludes that bankruptcy does not rele...

The Supreme Court Restores a Man’s Acquittal Because the ...