Substantial cases of interest in which NST has been involved include the following:

Recent decisions

On July 19, 2019, the Supreme Court of British Columbia released its judgment in Concord Pacific Acquisitions Inc. v. Oei, 2019 BCSC 1190, following 48 days of trial before the Honourable Mr. Justice Voith. Led by Irwin G. Nathanson, Q.C. (partner), Stephen R. Schachter, Q.C. (partner) and M. Caitlin Ohama-Darcus (associate), the firm successfully defended a claim in excess of $350 million brought by Concord Pacific Acquisitions Inc. against the three named defendants, including renowned Singaporean businessman, Hong Leong Oei. At the heart of this dispute was a purported transaction to develop a significant piece of waterfront land owned indirectly by Mr. Oei, described in the court’s reasons as a “multiyear billion-dollar development”. Led by its President and CEO, Terry Hui, and Vice President, David Ju, Concord alleged that it had entered into binding agreements with Mr. Oei to jointly own and develop the property. The court rejected their evidence and dismissed Concord’s claim in its entirety.

Class Actions

In Sun-Rype Products Ltd. v. Archer Daniels Midland and others, the firm successfully represented one of the defendants in a class proceeding alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the sale and distribution of high-fructose corn syrup. Part of the Supreme Court of Canada’s “Class Action Trilogy”, Lexpert listed this as one of the “Top Ten Cases of 2013”.

In Samos v. James A. Pattison and others, the firm successfully defended a proposed class action in which the plaintiff sought to certify a $500 million claim alleging fraud and misrepresentation. Certification was refused and a subsequent application for reconsideration was also refused.

In Lieberman v. Business Development Bank of Canada, the firm successfully defended a class action at trial. The plaintiffs, pensioners, claimed against the defendant for breach of fiduciary duty in the administration of its pension plan.  Though some breaches of fiduciary duty were found, the plaintiffs were limited to technical relief conceded by the defendant and did not recover damages

In Walcott v. London Life Insurance Company and Young v. Shell Canada Limited, the firm participated in the defence of multi-jurisdictional class actions which were successfully resolved by settlements that were approved by the courts. The Walcott action involved a claim against an insurer for alleged misrepresentation in the sale of "vanishing premium" policies. The Young action involved a claim against a gasoline retailer for the sale of gasoline containing an allegedly damaging additive.

Oppression Claims/Securities/Shareholders Disputes

In Icahn Partners LP v. Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., the firm successfully represented a New York hedge fund both at trial and on appeal in a shareholders’ oppression action seeking to set aside transactions converting approximately $110 million from debt to equity. This matter was successfully defended on its merits within three months of the disputed conversion.

In Telus Corp. v. Mason Capital Management LLC, the firm represented Mason Capital, an American hedge fund, in a corporate battle against Telus involving parallel proceedings in the British Columbia courts. The case was notable for its compressed time frame—following a hearing in the trial court in early September 2012, an appeal was expedited and heard by the Court of Appeal in early October 2012. Lexpert Magazine described this case as “an epic shareholder dispute that demanded inter-firm teamwork and strategic vision.”

In HudBay Minerals Inc. (Re), the firm successfully represented August Resource Corporation in resisting the application brought by HudBay Minerals before the B.C. Securities Commission for a cease-trade order of Augusta’s shareholder rights plan.

In Casey v. Copperleaf Technologies Inc., the firm acted for Copperleaf Technologies in successfully opposing a shareholder’s claim for oppression.

In Northern Minerals Investment Corp. v. Mundoro Capital Inc., 2012 BCSC 1090, the firm acted for Mundoro Capital in successfully defending against an application attempt to block various acts of the board, brought by a dissident shareholder.   

In Global Securities Corporation v. British Columbia Securities Commission, the firm appeared for the respondent, Global Securities, in the British Columbia Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada on a constitutional challenge of provisions of the British Columbia Securities Act empowering the Commission to act as an evidence gatherer for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mining Disputes

The firm has successfully represented parties in two of Canada’s most significant mining cases: Minera Aquiline Argentina SA v. IMA Explorations Inc. and Inmet Mining Corp. v. Homestake Canada Inc.

In Minera Aquiline, the firm successfully prosecuted a claim by the Argentine subsidiary of Aquiline Resources Inc., for a constructive trust in respect of the Navidad Project, a world class silver deposit in Argentina, and related properties. The case concerned the use by the defendant IMA Exploration Inc. of confidential regional exploration data to stake the properties.  In its reasons, the Supreme Court held that the use by IMA was unlawful and ordered IMA to transfer the properties to Aquiline’s subsidiary within 60 days. The defendants' appeal from the Supreme Court's decision was dismissed.

In Inmet, the firm successfully prosecuted a vendor's action for breach of a contract to purchase a gold mine. The purchaser claimed that it was not required to proceed with the purchase because our client had failed to make full disclosure of facts material to the purchase. This defence failed and the trial judge awarded the vendor $88.2 million damages, which were increased on appeal. Following the appeal, our client received $111 million from the purchaser.

Pension Litigation

In Buschau v. Rogers Cablesystems Inc., the firm successfully defended related actions in which employees sought to recover pension surplus by forcing the wind-up of a closed pension plan following the employer's mistaken removal of funds in breach of trust. The funds were replaced, by consent, and the employees' attempts to compel termination of the plan were successfully resisted through nine decisions in five courts on September 25, 1998 , January 11, 2001 April 25, 2002 , May 1, 2003, February 20, 2004 , May 18, 2004, June 22, 2006, September 11, 2008, and September 9, 2009.

In Bower v. Cominco Ltd., the firm successfully defended an action in which pensioners and former employees sought to recover $78 million (including interest) of pension surplus transferred between pension plans. The action was successfully defended on the basis of the plans' subsequent merger, whose legality was confirmed. The plaintiffs' appeal was dismissed as was their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Partnership/Human Rights Law

In McCormick v. Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, the firm successfully defended a leading national law firm before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada in relation to a former partner’s human rights age discrimination complaint. McCormick was listed by Lexpert Magazine as one of the top 10 business cases of 2014.


In Hughes v. Vander Zalm, the firm successfully prosecuted a libel action before a jury on behalf of B.C.’s former conflict of interest commissioner, Ted Hughes, against former B.C. Premier Bill Vander Zalm.

Other Commercial Matters

In R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2013 BCSC 1963, the firm was retained by the leading plaintiffs’ class action firm in British Columbia in a disqualification motion brought by the Tobacco defendants that engaged unique issues of conflicts. The firm was successful in having the defendants’ application dismissed.

In Strother v. 3464920 Canada Inc., the firm represented one of Canada's national law firms in proceedings before the British Columbia Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. The plaintiff, a former client of the law firm, accused the law firm and one of its former partners of breach of fiduciary duty resulting from acting in a conflict of interest.  While the plaintiff achieved some success in the Court of Appeal, in the Supreme Court of Canada the law firm was exonerated of misconduct and the remedy awarded by the Court of Appeal was substantially reduced. 

In Hollinger Inc. v. Radler, the firm successfully defended an application to continue an ex parte mareva injunction pronounced by the Supreme Court of British Columbia on October 25, 2006. The continuation application was heard over 4 days and dismissed on November 18, 2006. An application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on November 29, 2006.  The firm subsequently defended Mr Radler in proceedings before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that were settled in 2014.

In Albion Securities Company Limited v. Milne et al, the firm successfully prosecuted claims by the plaintiffs against their former lawyers. The claims were complicated by denials of coverage by the lawyers' insurers. Through multi-party mediated negotiations involving the defendants and their insurers, Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson negotiated a recovery of $10.475 million or 85% of the loss sustained for our clients.

In Nutreco Canada Inc. v. F. Hoffman LaRoche Ltd. et al, the firm successfully prosecuted claims involving a conspiracy to fix prices for industrial vitamins to settlement negotiations in Canada and Switzerland. The negotiations followed our successful defence of a defendant's challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia court.