Court File No. CV-17-578681-00CE

ONTARIOSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

(Commercial List)

B ETWEEN:

BRUNO-MANSER-FONDS, Association for the Peoples of the Rainforest

and MUTANG URUD

- and -

Applicants

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, TORONTO-DOMINION BANK,

MANULI FE FINANCIAL CORPORATION and

DELOITTE & TOUCHE

January 26, 2018

Respondents

FACTUM OF THE APPLICANTS(Application for with-notice Norwich Pharmaca I order

returnable February 5-6, 2018)

BENNETT JONES LLP3400 One First Canadian PlaceP.O. Box 130Toronto ON M5X 1A4

Lincoln Caylor (#37030L)Email: cay/o/./(0ennoilones.coni

Maureen NI. Ward (#44065Q)Email lvardm@benneitjones.coni

Telephone: (416) 863-1200Facsimile: (416) 863-1716

Lawyers for the Applicants

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PART I - INTRODUCTION

PART I11 - FACTS 3

A. The Parties 3

B. Taib's Political Corruption and the Deforestation in Sarawak 4

C. Proceeds of Corruption Transferred to Sakto in Canada 7

PART III - ISSUES 10

PART IV - LAW AND ARGUMENT 11

A. The Nature of a Private Prosecution and the Information Required 1 1

B. A Legitimate Purpose of a Non rich Pharmaca/ Order is to Determine If There AreReasonable Grounds for a Private Prosecution 12

1. Enabling Justice to be Done 12

2. Guidance from English Law 13

3. Analogous Position to Potential Civil Claimants 14

4. Consistent with Relationship Between Private Actors and the Criminal JusticeSystem 15

5. The Applicants Are Appropriate Persons 17

C. The Applicants Meet the Test for a Nonvich Phar•inacal Order in this Case 17

1. There is a bona fide or reasonable claim 17

2. The Third Parties from Whom Disclosure is Sought are Innocently Involved 21

3. The Third Parties are the Only Practicable Source of Information 21

4. The Respondents Will Be Indemnified for Any Costs of Disclosure 22

5. The Interests of Justice Favour Obtaining Disclosure 22

D. Conclusion 2.5

PART V - RELIEF SOUGHT 25

SCHEDULE "A"SCHEDULE "B"SCHEDULE "C" -SCHEDULE "D"

— List of Authorities— Statute Excerpts- List of "Sala° Group" Entities—. Draft Order

PART I - INTRODUCTION

1. The applicants seek a Norwich Pharmacal order to obtain information for the purpose of

determining whether there arc reasonable grounds for a Canadian private prosecution of the criminal

offences of money laundering and the possession of property obtained by crime, and against which

individuals or entities such prosecution could be pursued (the "Norwich Application").

2. Information obtained through years of investigation appears to reveal that Jamilah Taib Murray

("Jamilah"), her husband Sean Murray ("Murray") and numerous corporations under their control

may have participated in the laundering in Canada of proceeds consisting of funds obtained through

corruption by Iamilah's father, Abdul Mahmud Taib ("Taib"), a corrupt Malaysian state official.

3. Taib is clearly corrupt. While Taib is a lifetime politician constitutionally prohibited from

commercial enterprise, he is nonetheless one of South East Asia's wealthiest men. In 2010, Taib

himself stated: "l have more money than I can ever spend ...all my children are looked after."' His

daughter, Jamilah, lives in Ottawa and on a timeline that has coincided with Taib's rise to political

power and corresponding corruption, she has become one of the richest women in Canada. She has

done so through a multimillion dollar real estate company she started as a 23-year old Carleton

University graduate with no relevant experience and no independent source of wealth.

4. Still, further evidence is required to determine whether there are reasonable grounds .for a private

criminal prosecution and against which individuals or entities such prosecution could be pursued.

Through the Norwich Application, the applicants are seeking to obtain and evaluate intermation that

may potentially increase their "bona fide or reasonable claim" (the Norwich Pharmacal test) to

"reasonable grounds" to believe the offences in question were committed (the Cr/mina/ Code test).

Affidavit of Dr. Lukas Straurnann sworn June 27, 2017 ("Straumann Affidavit"), Exhibit 5, Video 1, 'Motion Record of the Applicants ("MR")Vol. 1, p. 208.

2

5. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the private prosecution proCess as "a fundamental

precept" and a "fundamental and historical right."2 Canadian courts are loath to interfere with this

right.3 Similarly, the House of Lords has held that use of a private prosecution "remains a valuable

constitutional safeguard against inertia or partiality on the part of authority." ̀4

6. l'o date, despite the available evidence, no charges have been brought against Jamilah, Murray or

the corporations they control. This is the exact type of case for which private prosecutions were

intended, namely to backstop against inert public authorities. After an initial hearing of this matter

where the Honourable Justice Myers required notice to be provided, His Honour emphasized the

seriousness and importance of this matter:

If the [applicants'l5 evidence is correct, there may be very significant criminal misconductbeing committed here in aid of corrupt foreign official(s). There may be no one else here whois interested in uncovering the truth whether it has to do with criminality here, corruptionabroad that Canadians are facilitating, or deforestation and destruction of Indigenous habitatand culture in Malaysia.'

7. The relief sought by the applicants is also consistent with both the well-established purposes of

Norivich Pharmaca/ relief and the approach taken in the where private prosecutions are more

common than in Canada and courts have indicated that Alb/11kb Pharmaca/ orders in support of private

prosecutions are acceptable.

8. The respondents — who are the bankers, lenders and accountant for the numerous corporations

under Jamilah and Murray's control — are the only practicable source for obtaining the necessary

information and documents relevant to determining whether there arc reasonable grounds for a private

(Jnebec (011torney General) e Lechasscni et 01,[1981] 2 SCR 25.3 at parr 261, Book of Authori ties of the Applicant ("BOA"), Tab 9; [Lechasseur];R r Dowson,[1983] 2 SCR 164 at para 155, BOA, Tab 10.Ontario Realty Corp e Sanfbil, 2003 CarswellOni 2902 at para 64 (Sup Ct .1), BOA, 'l'ab 12 [Sanford].GOUriei r Union ql Post ()like [Voila:Ts, [1977] 3 All la 70 at para 79 (Lord Wilberforce) and 97 (1.ordl)iplock) (DL), BOA, 'fah 11 [Gourio].References to "plaintiffs" and "defendants" rather than "applicants" and "respondents" in Justice Myer's decision is because Me action seas initiallyconstituted Fir] a statement of claim. The action was later reconstituted as an application.Applicant's Supplementary Book or Authorities ("SBOA"), Tab 1, Decision of Justice Myers in Bruno Mansci Fonds r Royal Bank of Canada,2017 ON SC at para 13.

- 3 -.

prosecution and identifying the individuals and entities against \N/horn such prosecution should be

brought] The interests of justice favour disclosure. In these circumstances, disclosure should be

ordered.

PART - FACTSA. The Parties

9. The first applicant is Bruno-Manser-Fonds ("BAH"), a charitable organization based in Basel,

Switzerland. In 2011, it was certified by ZEWO, a Swiss foundation that allows trustworthy charities

to carry its seal of approval! The second applicant is Mutang Urud ("Mutang,"), a Canadian citizen

and member of the Kelabit tribe, an Indigenous group native to Sarawak. As a Malaysian born in

Sarawak, Mutang, along with other Indigenous community members, arc victims of Taib's corruption

and diversion of public funds. In 1992, as a result of his efforts to bring Taib's corruption to the

attention of the international community, Mutang was held in solitary Confinement for one month by

Taib's regime.?

10. The respondents are the bankers, lenders and accountant of certain corporations under the control

oflamilah and Murray. Each of Royal Bank of Canada ("12I3C"), The Toronto-Dominion Bank (H)

Bank") and Manulife Financial Corporation ("M aniline") have made significant loans to and

transferred and received funds on behalf of those corporations, and Deloitte & Touche ("Deloitte")

has provided accounting services to one or more those corporations (and may still do so).

The applicants do not allege any wrongdoing against the respondents and have undertaken not to commence any proceedings against them beyondthis request for documents (including any private prosecution process). The order sought is narro)vly tailored and addresses only corporate Financialrecords that relate to the source oldie funds that have: contributed 10 the wealth or the Canadian corporations within the Saklo Group. It does notprovide for disclosure of personal bank account statements of Jamilali, Murray or anyone else.Dr. Lukas Siniumann serves as 1310.1''s Executive Director and is the alliant in support of this application. He holds a DID in Hisfay than Zurich University, is aCertificd Eland ixaminer with the Assosiation al:Codified Eland tixaminels, and is the author ofithe book Alone), /a Lung On the Trail of the ,..1sian Mnfia("Money Logging"), Whiell ClacliN the hiStOry economy and politics ortheMidaysian state ocsardwak.Straumann Affidavit at pail 13, MR Vol: 1, p. 18.

4

1 1. The non-party targets at issue on this application are Taib, Onn Bin Mahmud ("Onn"), Jamilah

and Murray, and the corporations they control. The corporations are collectively referred to herein as

the "Salto Group" and are listed at Schedule "C".

B. Taib's Political Corruption and the Deforestation in Sarawak

1 2. The rainforests of Sarawak were formerly the most biodiverse habitats in the world. One hectare

of rainforest formerly housed more tree species than was found in all of North America, The

Indigenous peoples of Sarawak. including Mutang's Kelabit tribe, historically used the rainforests for

their livelihood and as part of their social and cultural heritage. As a Penan tribe headman stated: "We

were very well off at that time. The forest was still intact, and we lived off its bounty."'

13. Massive deforestation has severely damaged the pristine beauty and natural abundance of

Sarawak's rainforests. Over the past three decades, the forests were logged at unsustainable levels and

land was taken over by timber companies, oil plantation companies, commercial dams, and other forms

of industry." it is estimated that 90% of the primeval rainforests have been cut down. As a result, the

indigenous communities that depended on the torests for survival were forced further into poverty and

marginalization, and many lost access to their traditional lands without adequate consultation and

compensation. 12

1 4. At the heart of this massive deforestation is Taib, the former Chief Minister and current Governor

of the state of Sarawak. While many governments around the world engage in the destruction oilnatural

habitats and Indigenous lands due to what some consider bad politics, in this ease Taib has done so

corruptly for his own benefit and diverted state proceeds to him and his -family.

Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 1, pp. 47, MR Vol. 1.Straumann Affidavit of para 16,11,1R Vol. I p. lb.Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 19, MR Vol. 2, p. 375. See also MR Vol. 2, p. 371 to 375. As Malaysian political scientist Do Andrew Acria has concluded:"Cliven ihedisplaccmcnt via massive logging delbrs-station, it is (he nintl Indigenous communities orSarawak who remain amoni4tho more impoveashed comparedto other glows in Malaysia."

15. Taib was .first appointed to public office at the age of 27. At that time, he had no business and

neither he nor his 'family members had any wealth. In 1968, Taib became a Minister in the Malaysian

.federal government. In 1981, Taib became the Chief Minister of the state of Sarawak, a position he

held until 2014. After his resignation as Chief Minister in February 2014, Taib was appointed as

Governor of Sarawak, a position he continues to hold today."

16. The Constitution of the State of Sarawak is clear: "the Chief Minister shall not hold any office of

profit and shall not actively engage in any commercial enterprise."1.5 Despite this law, during his tenure

as Chief Minister, Taib and his family and friends became immensely wealthy. It is estimated that

Taib's .family is amongst the wealthiest in South East Asia.16 BM F has compiled a list of companies

in which Taib 'family members were known to have a beneficial interest. By December 201 1, the list

consisted of 417 companies in 25 countries and offshore finance centers.17 13y the same year, [IMF

determined that the Taib family's stakes in 14 large Malaysian companies alone were worth

approximately US81.46 billion.' 8

1 7. Taib and his family members have personally benefited .from numerous timber licenses, land leases

and state contracts. During Taib's first six years as Chief Minister (beginning in 1981), his family

members and political allies received timber concessions for 1.6 million hectares.' 0 Between 1990 and

2010, Taib distributed over another 1.5 million hectares of state land worth billions to his inner eircle.20

In turn, Taib and his inner circle have diverted the majority of all timber concession rent toward their

personal financial gain, in addition to ensuring the development of theft continued political

Straumann Affidavit at para 23, MR Vol_ 1, p. 24.Straumann Affidavit at para 23 and 24, MR Vol. I, p. 24.Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 33, Vol. 3, p. 850.Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 4. MR Vol. I., p. 137.Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 32, MR Vol. 3, p. 843-844,Straumann Affidavit at para 33 and 67, MR Vol. 1, p. 28 and 42.Straumann Affidavit al para 38, MR Vol. 1, pp. 30-31; Straumann Alf idavit, Exhibit I, p. 110, MR Vol. I .Stratimann Affidavit:, Exhibit I , p. 21 1 , iMR Vol. I ,

dominance.2I Taib himself acknowledged at an electoral event in 2010: "I have more money than I can

ever spend ...all my children are looked after."22

1 8. The Taib family takeover of Sarawak's main publicly traded infrastructure company, Cahya Mater

Sarawak ("CMS"), provides further evidence of Taib's corruption. Taib's younger brother. Onn, was

installed as Chairman of CMS and, in 1996, as a final step in Taib's orchestration of its privatization,

CMS purchased a Malaysian investment holding company, Concordance Holdings, that had been set

up by Onn and Jamilah in 1981 (when Jamilah was just 21 years old). CMS paid the highly-inflated

price of US$140 million for Concordance Holdings.23

19. Since the privatization of CMS into the hands of the Taib family, at least 90 public contracts worth

over US$1.54 billion have been granted to CMS.24 During this time, eleven members of the Taib

family have been involved with CMS as shareholders, directors or members of the management

team.25 As of 2015, Taib's four children, including Jamilah, controlled at least 55% of the shares of

CMS.2' As Malaysian political scientist. Dr. Andrew Acrid has written regarding Taib's takeover of

CMS: "Apart from cultivating cronyism and corruption and possible further rent-seeking efforts, such

privatization deprives the State sector of lucrative sources of income and inter alia end up raising the

tax burden of ordinary taxpayers."27

20, There have been successful efforts to demonstrate the Taib family corruption. in March 2013, a

film was released that includes undercover interviews and negotiations with Taib family members and

2] See, li)r instance the doctoral thesis or Aincuicau economist David Walter Brown, who concludes that the Taib group of cntemriscs is the third largestconcession holder in the state, a position or market dominance unmatched by any other head of state in any of the other case..-; that Brown discussed in his study ofminforcst rent i❑ South East Asia: Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 16, MR Vol. 2, p. 275.Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 5, Video I MR Vol, 1., p. 208.

2-3 Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 19, MR Vol. 2, p. 497. Sec also isIR Vol 2, pp. 494-499.

Strimmann Affidavit, Exhibit 21, MR Vol. 2, p. 687.Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 21, MR Vol. 2, p. 687.Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 21, MR Vol. 2, p. 689,Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 19, MR Vol. 2, p. 498.

their associates in relation to land in Sarawak.28 Among other things, the film shows negotiations of a

deal that contemplates a 10% kickback to be paid to Taib (who it is said will not "surface" in relation

to the deal) and an illegal scheme to avoid payment of Malaysian taxes on a US$76 million deal.

2I . In sum, Taib's corruption is apparent on its face and has been recognized internationally, including

through extensive academic studies, learned articles, doctoral theses and books.29 In 2006, the U.S.

Embassy in Malaysia stated plainly in a cable to U.S. Secretary of State: "[T]he Sarawak- state

government remains highly corrupt and firmly in the hands of its chief minister tfaibl".3° The cable

went on to discuss how Taib's government continues to fail members of the Indigenous Penan

community by not providing adequate services, support and political self-determination, "while

maintaining a ion -standing grip on political power in the state."

C. Proceeds of Corruption Transferred to Sakto in Canada

22. In 1983, just shortly alter Taib's appointment as Chief Minister, Jamilah graduated from Ottawa's

Carleton University. She was just 23 years-old and had no independent source of income.32 Jamilah

founded Sakto, one of the key entities within the Sakto Group. The Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development ("OECD")33 has recently determined in a draft initial assessment

regarding the Sakto Group that "while having separate legally established corporate identities these

companies are linked and coordinate their economic activities and operations".34

The film has been riled in court on a USII at Ilxhibit 5 to Straumann Affidavit as Video 2, MR Vol. 1, p. 208.

Straumann Affidavit at para 16, MR Vol. I , p. 19. The publications and reports on this obvious corruption and the politics ofthedeforgstation in South PastAsia including in Sarawak arc in the evidence.Straumann Affidavit, 29, MR Vol. 3, p. 817.Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 29, I\IR Vol. 3, p. 817.

Straumann Affidavit at para 19(c), MR Vol. I, p. 2133 A 35 member country international economic organization that includes Canada.

Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 131, pares 22, 24 and 26, MR Vol. 7, p. 2496 and 2497. The Sakto Group entities considered by the NCI" were the

same as those involved in this application except that City Gate International Corporation, Glowell Development Corporation, Prime Midian

Holdings Inc., Astar Properties Ltd., Tagus Investments LIM and Tess Investments Ltd. were not included. There were also various additional

Sakto-related entities before the NCI' including Natalite Investments Ltd.

- 8 -

23. Jamilah's husband,-Murray, has admitted that the business of Sakto 1:1ronei the start was to "aequire"

and "develop" real estate.35 This was the case despite the filet that Jamilah had no relevant experience

witti real estate at that time.

24. Jamilah founded Sakto using funds biven to her by her father. Taib has admitted that he gave

Jamilah a generous gift of money in tbc 19805.36 Subsequently, Murray admitted that Jamilah used

some, of the funds giftod from Taib to purchase file shares in Sakto.37 Murray also admitted that there

were tbree other founding shareholders of Sakto who veere also members of the Taib Pamily and that

this included Taib's brother Onn.38

25. Currently, copies of Saldo's financial statements are only available for its first 10 years of

operations (19831993).39 The financial statements, which were prepared by Deloitte, show that during

that period, Saldo aceumulated a$10.44 milhon deficit" and incurred losses every year except for

1 98'7, when it made a small net profit of $53,40941. They also show, however, that Sakto made real

estate investments of $7.9 milkou in .198442, $3.1 million in 198543 and $14 mil Kon in 1986.'14

26, Saldo's abi.l.ity to grove and male significant real estate investments over its first 1.0 years of

operations does not appear to be baserf on any legitimate independent funding. Rather, during that

period, Sakto shareholders (who Murray has said inelnded Jamilah, Taib's brother Onn and Taib's son

Straurnann Affidavit, Exhibit 44, MR Vol. 4, p. 1205.

36 Sint-UIT- M Affidavit at para 95, MR Vol. I, pp. 54-55; Straumann Affidavit I, Exhibit 5, Video 3 — Taib Video. MR Vol. I .

3 / St rannlann A tlfflavit„ Exhibit 41, MR Vol. 4, p. 1205.

Straurnann Affidavit, Ex hibits 41, MR Vol. 3, p. 999.

s' Stratunann Affidavit at para 101, MR Vol. 1 , p, 58; Strauniann Affidavit, Exhibit 56 and 57, MR Vol 4, pp. 1329 and 1368.

Sisatimarin Affidavit, Exhibit 57, MR Vol. 4, p. 1368.

Straurnann Affidavit, Exhibit 56, MR. Vol. 4, p. 1362

Strautriann Affidavit, Exhibit 56, MR Vol, 4, p. 1334.

Straumann Affidavit., Exhibit 56, MR Vol. 4, p, 1343.

Straunlann Affidavit, Exhibit 56, MR. Vol. 4, 1). 1353.

- 9 -

Mahmud Abu Bekir Taib) loaned at least $29.8 million to Sakto. This amount was comprised of $28.8

million in "interest-free" shareholder loans with no repayment terms.45

27. In addition, just three days after Sakto's incorporation, Taib's brother Onn. (who had significant

wealth through his control, via Taib, of Sarawak timber exports to Japan` °) purchased multiple

properties for $4.65 million.47 ()nn then transferred the properties to Sakto for just $1.00.48 Onn

characterized this transaction as a "trans-ler from trustee to beneficiary of the trust."49

28. Since the -founding of Sakto, the Sakto Group has engaged in real estate transactions in Ottawa and

has grown their assets significantly. This growth has included the purchase and development of the

prominent Preston Square office building in downtown Ottawa and various other properties around

Walldey Road in Ottawa.'° The nature of Sakto's growth raises further questions about its propriety.

29, For instance, in 1.996, Sakto registered two $20 million loans on its Preston Square and Walkley

Road properties, one of which was registered to Jamilah "in trust". The underlying agreement shows

indebtedness to, among others, 01111 and Taib's son, Rahman Taib,5 I as well as "to any other person

who, with the consent of Jamilah IL Taib, lend money to Sakto and become parties to the

Agreement".52 The agreement therefore demonstrates that Taib family members, and potentially others

known only to Jamilah, had loaned some portion of the $20 million to Sakto.

30. In 1997, Sakto Corporation (which is distinct from Sakto Development Corporation, referred to in

this factual as "Sakto") was incorporated. The directors of the corporation were Onn, Jamilah, Murray

1' As seen on the notes to the financial statements for 10 consecutive years ending in 1993 as prepared by Deloitte at Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 56

and 57, MR Vol 4 p7s. 1336, 1346, 1356, 1366, 1376, 1785, 1396, 1407, 1119, 1428.

1̀ 11 Straumann Affidavit at para 31 and Exhibits 17-14 and 274, MR Vol. 1, p. 26. 250 and 260.

Straumann ALfidavit at para 96, 04R Vol. 1, p. 55; Straumann 2Affichivit, Exhibit 45, MR Vol. 4, p. 1209. This was partially underUTen through a

vendor mortgage.Straumann Affidavit at pains 96-97, MR Vol. 1, pp. 55-56; Straumann Affidavit,111xhibit 45, MR Vol. 4, p. 1200; Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 46,

04R Vol. 4, p. 1218.Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 45, MR Vol. 4, p. 1212.

1111 The Preston Square building is rented to the Federal government and the government,of Ontario.

1111 Straumann Affidavit at pass 123 and 124, MR Vol. 1, pp. 67-68; Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 69, MR Vol. 4, p. 1533.

Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 68, MR Vol. 4, p. 1531.

10 -

and Iwo other individuals.53 After Sakto Corporation' s incorporation, it was transferred ownership of

multiple Ottawa properties.54 Since thon, Sakto Corporation's assets and profile have grorun

abundantly, and it is one of the major players ln Ottawa's real estate market. It is now the main arm of

the 'fait.) •family's ventures in Ottawa.55 Entiti es within the Sakto Group have also benefited from •fiinds

provided through various third party bans, including bans provided by the financial institution

respondents.56

31. The Taib family also has signifietint U.S. real estate holdings that are connected to Sakto in Canada.

For instance, in 1987, Saldi International Corporation ("Salai") n'as incorporated with a purpose of

purchasing and administering real estate in California.57 Notably, by at least 1988, a Sakti document

indicated expressly that 50% of its share capital was in fact being held "in trust for Abdul Taib

Mahmud" by bis family members.54 More reeently, in January 2017, the U.S. Government

Accountability Office issued a government report that expressly confirme(' that Sakti is "100 percent

linanced by the Taib family of Malaysia".59 The report also conlirmed that "Saki() international,

located in Canada, is the parent company of Sakti International Corporation". 6()

PART Hl - ISSUES

32. The applicants submits that the following issues arise on this application:

(a) The nature of a private prosecution and the information required.

(b) A legitimate purpose of a _Norwich Pharmacal order is to evaluate whethcr there arereasonable grounds for a private prosecution.

(e) 'flic applicants meet the test for a Nonuich Pharmaca/ order in this case.

Straumann Affidavit at para 117, MR Vol, 1, p. 75; Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 41, MR Vol. 3, pp. 989-990.

Straumann Affidavit al para 118, MR Vol. 1, p. 75; Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 96, MR Vol. 6, pp. 1991-1993.

•" More tecent communes in the Sakto Group indude Urbau Sky kivestments Ltd. Straumann Affidavit at paras 108-156, MR 1, pp. 61-78.Straumann Affidavit at pales 120 and 137, MR Vol, 1, pp. 6-67 and 71-72; Straumann Affidavit, Exhibil 74, MR Vol. 4, p. 1562, StraumannAffidavit, Exhibit 75, MR Vol. 4, p. 1571, Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 76, MR Vol. 5, p. 1581; Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 82, MR Vol. 5, p.1 774; Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 83, MR Vol. 5, p. 1786; Straumann Affidavit, Fshibil 84, MR Vol. 5, p. 1790; Straumann Affidavit, Lxhibit85, MR Vol. 5, p, 1810.Strawnann Affidavit at para 33, MR Vol. 1, p. 28.Straumann Aflidavil, 17xhibit 8, MR Vo. 1 ., p. 219.Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 109, MR Vol, 6, p. 7104,

60 Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 109, MR Vol. 6, p. 2104.

PART 1N7 - LAW AND ARGUMENT

A. The Nature of a Private Prosecution and the information Required

33. The Ci'iniiuul Code allows anyone who believes on reasonable grounds that a person has

committed an indictable offence to lay an information before a justice of the peace to commence

criminal proceedings.( Laying such an information results in a "pre-enquete" before a justice or judge.

If the justice or judge decides to issue process following the pre-enquete, the proceedings crystallize

into a private prosecution. The pre-enquete is held in-camera and without notice to the person who

allegedly committed the offence.62

34. In this case, to lay an information, the applicants would be required to swear that they have

reasonable grounds to believe that Jamilah, Murray and/or one or more Canadian corporations within

of the Sakto Group likely committed the offences alleged. While the applicants may have sufficient

information to commence a civil action (and would obtain the information sought through discovery

in such action), because a putative private prosecutor cannot obtain a search warrant, they require

additional information to evaluate whether to lay an information in the private prosecution process.

35. In particular, the applicants require further information to uncover the critical facts about the flow

of funds (such as those in banking and fund transfer related documents) before they can determine if

they can properly swear that they have reasonable grounds to believe criminal offences have been

committed. While the applicants have clearly identified jamilah, Murray, and certain corporations

within the Sakto Group as potential wrongdoers, they do not believe that they currently have sufficient

information to determine if there are reasonable grounds for a private prosecution and theretbre require

Coda., RSC 1985, a (246, a. 504 [Criminal (Ala].Criminal Code, as. 504 and 507(I); R r A/c/luia, 2010 ONCA 361 al pars 45, 70 r1/4;:. 71, BOA, 'tab 7 [11(1/a/e]; R r Casarhelyi, 2011 ONCA 397at pars 49,130A, 'Fab S [ Vasarhelyi].

more information. The applicants also possess even less information about the remaining corporate

entities in the Sakto Group.

36. The applicants submit that the only way for them to evaluate whether there are reasonable grounds

for a private prosecution and, if so, against which entities, is to review the following information: (i)

the ultimate source of the funds used to acquire the assets held by or for the benefit ofJamilah, Murray

and the Sakto Group, (ii) the inflow of funds to the Sakto Group, particularly any funds advanced by

shareholders or other parties with connections to Malaysia and/or Taib, (iii) the ultimate source of the

funds used to repay debts owed by the Sabo Group to the respondents and (iv) the circumstances

surrounding, and particulars of, real estate transactions and mortgages negotiated] tbcs 1 Sakto Group.

B. A Legitimate Purpose of a Norwich Pharinacal Order is to Determine if There AreReasonable Grounds for a Private Prosecution

1. Enabling Justice to be Done

37. The purpose of a Norwich Phannaca/ order "is to enable justice to be done."63 There is no

prescribed categories of purposes for which Norwich Pharmacal relief will be granted." Instead, the

necessity requirement for Nonrich Phai'inacal relief may be satisfied in a variety of circumstances in

the context of each case, and the legitimate purpose requirement may be satisfied in various ways.65

38. To date, the courts have recognized a number of legitimate purposes kw Norwich Pharmacal

relief.66 One well-established and legitimate purpose for Non rich Pharmacal relief is to evaluate

Whether there is a basis for a legal proceeding. No firm commitment to start the proceeding is

63 (7E1 Group at paras 85 and 90, BOA, Lab 3; Straka r Hinnbor /?iver Rcgiona/ Hospi/a/, 2000 CarswellOnt 41 14 at para 36 (CA), BOA, Tab 5

[Straka]." GEA Group at para 54, BOA, Tab 3; Sim/,-(n at para 51• BOA, Tab 5.

Group at para 91, BOA, Tab 3." GE:1 Group at pant. 91, BOA, Tab 3.

- 13 -

required.67 Obtaining information necessary to identify a wrongdoer is also a weil-established and

legitimate purpose -for Nonvich Pharmacal relief.68

39. The applicants subtuit that this Honourable Court should consider that evaluating whether there

are reasonable grounds for a private prosecution and ideatifying potential targets of such a prosecution

enables justice to be done and is analogous to legitimate purposes for Norwich Pharmacal orders that

the courts have previously recognized.

2. Guidance from English Law

40. The applicants are not aware of any Canadian court addressing whether it is appropriate to grant a

Norwich Pharmacal order m support of a private proseeunion. However, deeisions of courts in the U.K.

provide relevant guidance. Private prosecutions are more frequent in the U.K. than in Canada. The

U.K. therefbre bas a more developed body of relevant case law. The U.K. case law suggests that

Norwich Pharmaca/ orders can he granted for the purposes of a private prosecution.

41 . In a passage later enclorsed by the House of Lords, the English Court of Appeal has suggested that

courts should grant a Nonrich Pharmacal order where the applicant requires the respondent's

assistance to bring a private proseenbott

Private prosecutions are still permissible and from time to time prove their value as a longstopbehind an inert public authority. 1 would want to lcave open the situation where an applicantcan show a genuine nood or wiste to bring a private prosecution hut requires the respondent'shelp in tdentifying the wrongdoer."

42. The House of Lords has rejected the argument that Norwich Pharmacal orders should °it./ he

availahle in connection with civil proceedings. Rather, wrongdoing that amounts to crime may allow

GE.1 Group at paras 85 and 88-91, BOA, Tab 3; P v 7' Lid,11997] 4 All ER 200 at paras 208-209 (Clh Div), BOA, Tab 6[P t' I]; Strahl at para 52,BOA, Tab 5.GEA Group at. para 91, BOA, '1ab 3.L'inauciai aues Lid 0/A I. Ilitcrtycw KI, 12002] EWCA Civ 274 al par<t 22, BOA, Tab 17 [InterbreH; .1.sinvorth Sccurity Hospital 'GA%LinEtcd, 120021 UI( 29 al paras 55-56, BOA, 'Lab 18 l'Ash,vorthl.

- 14

the courts to grant a Arorivich Pharmaca/ order even when the wrongdoing in question does not

correspond to a civil cause of action.70 As Lord Woolf stated:

lithe law has developed so as to enable, in the appropriate circumstances, the wrongdoer to beidentified if he has committed a civil wrong I can .find no justification for not requiring thewrongdoer to be identified if he has committed a criminal wrong. To draw a distinctionbetween civil and criminal wrongs can only he justified if, contrary to the views I have alreadyexpressed, disclosure can only be ordered to enable civil proceedings to be brought against thewrongdoer. If the victim of the wrongdoing is content that the wrongdoer should be prosecutedby the appropriate prosecuting authority 1 cannot see any objection to his obtaining the identityof the wrongdoer to enable that to happen. The prosecution may achieve for the victim theremedy which the victim requires just as dismissal of an employee can do so. The morerestrictive approach attaches excessive significance to the historic origins of the jurisdiction.71

43. Any restrictive approach to the Norwich Pharmaca/ test in the circumstances of this case would

be therefore be inconsistent with the relevant U.K.case law. The applicants submit that the U.K. case

law should guide this Honourable Court's analysis of the a' ppropriateness of ordering the disclosure

sought in this case.

3. Analogous Position to Potential Civil Claimants

44. Evaluating whether there are reasonable grounds for a private prosecution is also closely analogous

to evaluating whether there are 'facts sufficient to give rise to a civil cause of. action. As a result, courts

have recognized that, without a Nora ich Pharmaca/ order, applicants may lack the necessary

investigatory tools and will remain in the dark about critical details that would allow them to evaluate

whether there arc grounds for a private prosecution or identify the wrongdoer.72 In addition, numerous

commentators have recognized the difficulty of gathering evidence in support of a private prosecution

arising from the fact that relevant evidence is often held by the target and private prosecutors do not

111 :Ashworth at paras 53-56, BOA, Tab 18.

- 1sh11.0/1/1 at Para 53, BOA, '11a 1-, 18.P af palls 208-200, BOA, Tab 6; .Straka pan 52-53, BOA, Tah 5.

- 15 -

have normal criminal investigatory tools available to them. It is well-recognized that this difficulty and

the resulting lack of quality evidence is the main cause of the failure of private prosecutions.73

45. in this case, the applicants are closely analogous to civil litigants who seek a Norwich Pharmacal

order and, without such an order, will remain in the dark about critical details necessary to evaluate

whether there are reasonable grounds for a private prosecution.

4. Consistent with Relationship Between Private Actors and the Criminal JusticeSystem

46. The applicants' position on the availability of a Norwich Pharmacy/ order in connection with a

potential private prosecution is consistent with how Canadian courts have previously treated the

relationship between private actors and the criminal justice system. In R v Thornton, the Court of

Appeal for Ontario recently upheld a criminal conviction that was obtained in part on the strength of

banking records that the employer obtained in a Norwich Pharmacy/ order and subsequently provided

to police.74 This being the case, there is clearly no prohibition on usinL, documents obtained by private

actors such as the applicants through Norwich Pharmacal orders in criminal proceedings.

47. This Honourable Court has also previously confirmed that the Attorney General (whose shoes the

applicants would seek to fill in a private prosecution) can apply Tor and obtain Norwich Pharmacal

orders. In Ontario (Attorney General) 1, 6/5 Stanley Strect75 the Attorney General sought an order

preserving the alleged proceeds or the instruments of unlawful activity. In response, Justice Brown

stated that the record before him did not contain evidence about bank accounts and held: "If the AGO

lacks information about financial accounts or securities which might constitute the proceeds or

instruments of unlawful activity, it is open to the AGO, in the appropriate case, to seek a Norwich

Li Peter Burns, "Private Prosecutions in Canada: The Law and a Proposal Ibr Change," (1975) 21 McGill Li 269 at 296-297, BOA, Tab 23 r`illurns"Mallet at 16 and 147, BOA, Tab I; Swaigen et ill at 39. BOA. Tab 15.R Thornton, 2016 ONCA 562, BOA, Tab 23 affirming 2014 ONSC 3432, BOA, Tab 24.

7' °Wail° (ttorney Gcncial) v 615 ,S'twiley ,SVect, 2010 ONSC 1229 at para 17, BOA, Tab 26 [615 ,ctairlo, Sties/I.

- 6 -

order":76 in this case, the applicants seek to act consistent with the Attorney General's ability to obtain

a Norlrich Pharinaccd order.

48. Justice Brown rendered another relevant decision in Ontario (Attorney General) i Two .Financial

Institutions'.77 There, Justice Brown declined to extend a Norwich Order sought by the Attorney

General because, among other things, the Attorney General's request strayed into tracing assets :for a

criminal investigation. However, Justice Brown's rationale for declining to extend the already existing

Norwich Pharmacal order is critical. His Honour noted that the Attorney General was able to utilize

the Criminal Code's search warrant provisions and therefore should not use Nortuieh Pharinaca/

orders for its criminal investigation. He also noted that courts should carefully assess requests by

government actors to compel disclosure of personal information since these requests could engage

privacy interests protected by the Canadian Charter of Right's and Freedonn7s

49, In this case, however, the applicants cannot utilize the Criminal Code's search warrant provisions

and are therefore not similarly situated to the Attorney General in Two Financial Institutions. Further,

the applicants are clearly not government actors and their actions therefore do not trigger any Charter

protections. Section 32 of the Charter ensures that the Charier only applies to the relationship between

government and private persons, not to the relationship between private persons in the absence of

governmental action: 79 The applicants are not subject to government control and are not implementing

a government policy or program as the law would require for them to be considered state agents and

part of government.w For these same reasons, the Ontario Court of Justice previously confirmed in

6/5 ,S'ion/cy Siicct at para 17, BOA, Fab 26.77 Ontario (litorney General) r Two Financial Inslinflion, 2010 ONSC 47, BOA, '1 ab 27 [Two Financial Thslitutionst

1;co Financial institutions at para 37. BOA, 'lab 27.Chin ter, s. 32(11; Hilly Church orSch ioo/op,y, [199,512 SCR 1 130 at pass 66-69, BOA, lab 28 11111/1,

'' 1? v Bohm., 2003 SCC 30 at para 28, BOA, Tab 20.

- 17 -

another case that Charter protections do not arise when information is gathered in support of a potential

private prosecution."

5. The Applicants Are Appropriate Persons

50. The applicants are appropriate persons to obtain a Norwich Pharinacal order and pursue a private

prosecution in Canada. The Criminal Code does not limit those who may pursue a private prosecution,

rather providing that "any one who ... believes that any person has committed an indictable offence"

may bring a private prosecution.82 This conclusion is confirmed by the willingness of Canadian courts

to allow private prosecutions brought by public interest groups including, for example, Ecojusticc

(formerly the Sierra Legal Defence Fund), the Chief of the fort McKay Indian Band. the Canadian

Environmental Law Association, and the Sudbury Environmental Law Association.S3

C. The Applicants Meet the Test for a _Norwich Pharmacal Order in this Case

51 . Norwich Pharmaca/ relief is available when the applicant can demonstrate: (i) a bona fide or

reasonable claim, (ii) the third party from which the information is sought is somehow involved in the

acts complained oh (iii) the third party is the only practicable source of the information available, (iv)

the third party can be indemnified for any costs of disclosure and (v) the interests of justice :Favour the

obtaining of disclosure." Here, the applicants can demonstrate each of the live requirements of

Noarich Pharniacal relief and, as a result, the disclosure sought in connection with a potential private

prosecution should be granted.

1. There is a bona fide or reasonable claim

52. The Court of Appeal for Ontario has held that the bona fide or reasonable claim threshold for

Norwich Pharmacal does not require the demonstration of a prima Jack ease. Rather, an applicant is

a i Podols.ky 1, Cadillac Fairview Corp, 2012 ONCJ 545 at putt 25,1300, Tab 30.Criminal Code, s. 588.Burns at 289-290,130A, Tab 23; Syvaigelt et al at 49-55, BOA, 'Tab 15; Podo/sky Cadillac I-7airvicw Corp, 2013 ONCJ 65, 1300, Tab 30.

a s Isqlbton at pard 40,1300, Tab 4; GE :I Group at pass 49-51, BOA, Tab 3.

- IS -

only required to provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the claim in question is "not frivolous

or vexatious."85

53. Ontario courts have recognized that the bona fide or reasonable claim threshold reflects the fact

that, in a Norwich Pharinuca/ application, "the applicant merely seeks an opportunity to discover

information that may or may not lead to a claim."" The threshold "is designed to .facilitate access to

J ustice." 87

54. Consistent with the bowl fide or reasonable claim threshold, the Court of Appeal has been clear

that there is no need to study the potential claim "to an exacting standard". In doing so, the Court of

Appeal noted that. in a typical Norwich Pharinaca/ application, "the court is only able to consider the

general parameters of a potential action the applicant may have.

55, in this case, the "bona .fide or reasonable claim" in question is a potential private prosecution of

the Canadian criminal offences of laundering the proceeds of crime and/or being in possession of

property obtained by crime against Jamilah, Murray and/or the Sakto Group. The evidence advanced

by the applicants demonstrates such bonajidc or reasonable claim.

56. In Canada, criminal liability for the offence of laundering; the proceeds of crime extends not only

to dealing with the proceeds of designated offences committed in Canada but also to dealing with the

proceeds of "an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted a

L'ql()/0/1 at paras 46 and 47, BOA, Tab 4; 165,1776 Ontario Limited -1, Stewart, 2013 ONCA 184 at para 59, SBOA, Tab 3. Note, however, that thenature and apparent strength of the applicant's potential action may be weighed together with the other relevant factors.Isojbtoii at para 47, BOA, 'lab 4; 1654776 Ontario Limited, para 57-58, SBOA, Tab 3.1654776 Ontario Limited, para 58, SBOA, Tab 3.

" 1654776 Ontario 1.1milcd, para 61, SBOA, Tab 3.

t9 -

designated offence." 89 The fact that the underlying offences of fraud on the government and breach of

trust by a public officer did not involve Canadian public officials is immaterial."

57. Taib's actions in Malaysia would constitute the Canadian crimes of frauds on the government,9

breach of trust by public ofticer92 and fraud.93 The available evidence clearly demonstrates that Taib

is a foreign corrupt official who has amassed an enormous wealth in numerous countries around the

world through the use of his .family members despite being constitutionally prohibited from holding

an office of profit or engaging in commercial activitv.94

58. Taib's corruption is potentially connected to money laundering offences in Canada in two distinct

time periods. Since 1976, the Criminal Code has made it an offence to be in possession of property

obtained by crime. 95 Since 1989, the Criminal Code has also made it an offence to launder the proceeds

of crime.96 Because Jamilah founded Sakto in 1983, the applicants are evaluating whether there are

reasonable grounds for a private prosecution for both possession of property obtained by crime (1983

onwards) and laundering the proceeds or crime (1989 onwards).

59. The available evidence plainly demonstrates that, on a timeline that has corresponded with Taib

serving as Sarawak's Chief Minister, the Sakto Group has become a real estate empire currently valued

at approximately $250 million and Jamilah has become one of the richest women in Canada despite

By analogy, in the extradition context where the court lutist determine whether foreign charges correspond to Canadian offences to satisfy thedouble criminality rule, the Court or Appeal for Ontario has found that bribery or a foreign public official corresponds to the s. 121(1 1(x) CriminalCode offence or bribing a public, official.The evidence of 'fftib's corruption rcivams largely unchallenged by Jamilah, Murray, the Saki( Group and Taib himself (who was served with allrelevant materials).Grin/hut/ Code, a. 121(1).

12 Criininal Code, s. 122.'11 Criminal Code, s. 380(1).'1 The evidence of Taib's corruption remains largely unchallenged by Jamilah, Murray, the Salto Group and Taib himself (who was served with all

JV1CVant materials).Criminal Lair, Amendment ./fet, 1975, SC 1974-75-76, c 93, s 29 [Crifizifut/ Lunt rtImendment.Act]; Criminal Code, s 3540).rfn :let to amend the Criminal Code, the Poor( 0111 1)Pirgs ;lot and the Norcolic SC 1988, c 51, :32; Criminal Code, s 462.31(1).

- 20 -

founding Sakto as a 23-year old Carlton graduate with no relevant experience and no independent

source of wealth.

60. Based on the available evidence, there is no credible explanation (and none at all advanced by the

target parties) .for the creation, expansion and operation of the Sakto Group other than it having been

funded with the proceeds of 'faib's widespread corruption in Malaysia. The available evidence also

contains various established connections between funds obtained through such corruption, the Sakto

Group and, in turn, Jamilah and Murray. Among other things, Murray has confirmed that Taib provided

Jamilah the funds to start Sakto, a company founded "with a purpose to acquire, develop and operate

real estate".97 The available evidence therefore demonstrates that the affairs of Taib, Jamilah, Murray

and the Sakto Group have various of the exact features of red flags for money laundering in the real

estate sector published by the Financial Action Task Force.98

61. Accordingly, on this record, there is clearly a bona fide or reasonable claim that Jamilah, Murray

and the Sakto Group intentionally or knowingly have utilized the illegal proceeds of Taib's corruption

in Canada, which is required for the criminal offences in question. This is sufficient to cross the

threshold required at the 'first stage of a Norwich 1"harmacal application. Notably, however, in order

to lay the information required to commence a private prosecution, the applicants need not just a bona

fide or reasonable claim but rather "reasonable grounds" to believe that the individuals or entities

named in the information have committed the offences in question.

62. Reasonable grounds is a higher standard, requiring "a suspicion that is grounded in objectively

discernable facts, which could then be subjected to independent judicial scrutiny."9' It is any

information that may potentially increase their "bona fide or reasonable claim" to "reasonable grounds"

Straumann Affidavit, Exhibit 44, MR Vol. 4, p. 1205." Stratimann AlTidattit ,1 ixhibit 4 at pp. 78-83, MR Vol. I, pp. 197-202.

1, Darrell, 2016 ONCA 141 at pitrit 4, S130A, Tab 4.

-21 -

to believe the offences in question Were committed that the applicants arc seeking to obtain and

evaluate through this Non t 'ich Pharniacal application.

2. The Third Parties from Whom Disclosure is Sought arc Innocently Involved

63. A financial institution that receives and processes the transfer of .funds allegedly procured by fraud

is an "innocently involved" third party against which a Nonvich Phannacal order may be sought. It is

not required that a financial institution actually have participated in the wrongdoing.10°

64. In this case. RBC has lent Sakto over $25 million between 1989-1994.101 N4anulife has been

Sakto's major commercial lender since 2003 and has registered over $73 million in loans on Sakto's

Preston Square Development.1°2 TD Bank also provided Sakto a mortgage totalling $8, I 74,588 in

1 986.1°3 .Deloitte provided accounting services to the main Said() Group entity, Sakto, from at least

1984 to 1993104 and appears to have also provided accounting services to the four of the American-

based Sakto Group companies including Sakti Holdings in at least June 2006.1°5 Schedules to the draft

order attached as Schedule "I)" to this factum are charts providing more details regarding these

transactions and services. Accordingly, the RBC, TD Bank, Mannlife and Deloitte likely have

important information relevant to evaluating whether there are reasonable grounds for a private

prosecution.

3. The Third Parties arc the Only Practicable Source of Information

65. Courts have recognized that when it is unreasonable to require the applicant to approach the alleged

Wrongdoer for the information, third parties (often financial institutions) become the only practicable

1" Imjblon at pans 49-50, BOA, Tab 4.Snatimann Affidavit, Exhibit 64, MR Vol. 4, p. 1489; Shaumann Affidavit, Exhibit. 52, MR Vol. 4, p. 1262; Sul-111'mm Affidavit, Exhibit 83, MRVol. 5, p. 1786.Straumann Affidavit. Exhibits 74-76, MR. Vols. 4 and 5, pp. 1562-1581.SRaumann Affidavit, Exhibit 62, MR Vol. 4, p. 1480.

I SRaumann Affidavit al pant 101, MR Vol. 1, p. 58Stratunann Affidavit, Fxhibit 39, MR Vol 3, p. 963.

- 27 -

source of the in formation.1°6 Here, Jamilah, Murray and the Sakto Group will not disclose the

information required to assess whether there are reasonable grounds for a private prosecution. Ii

response to this application, they have instead declined to advance any evidence regarding their

unexplained wealth. In these circumstances, the respondents are the only practicable source of the

information sought by the applicants.

4. The Respondents Will Be Indemnified for Any Costs of Disclosure

66. A party seeking a Noio rich Phuioiiacal order must undertake to indemnify the third parties for their

costs of disclosure.m Here, the applicants have undertaken to indemnify the respondents for any

reasonable copying costs incurred by having to comply with any Order granted by this Honourable

Court." They have also posted security for costs and confirmed to the respondents that they are not

making any allegations of wrongdoing against them and will not do so in the future including by

commencing any private prosecution against the respondents.

5. The Interests of Justice Favour Obtaining Disclosure

67. The offence of laundering the proceeds of crime is not a victimless crime. It reduces the resources

available to those in need of government services and undermines the governmental infrastructure that

all citizens rely on."' The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that corruption is a significant

barrier to international development and "diverts funds from those who are in great need of financial

support."11°

68. Canada's international obligations include providing accountability for corruption and money

laundering by public officials. Canadian courts have confirmed that the participation of Canadians in

i ii"/seitir/iiiii at pant 52, BOA, Tab 4.07 isrifiii/eii at paw 55, BOA, Tab 4.Strautinatm Affidavit at para 205, MR Vol. 1, p. 97.

0j P v Karigur, 2011 ONSC 3093 at wails 24 and 3i1, BOA, Tab 20 'Kali/gar]; R 1. Nik) _Resources lid. 200 CarswelliAlta 2521 at para 15 (Q13),BOA, Tab 21 r Mi a Resources]; It 1' GrUliihs I no t Internailonal, L20131 AJ No 412 af para H (Q13), BOA, "Fab 22 [Griffiths Ener,;,,y].

10 ll'orld Bank Group v. Wallace, 2010 SCC 15 al part 1. BOA, "lab 19.

- 23 -

the corruption of foreign public officials is an "embarrassinent to all Canadians" that undermines

Canada's effort to promote good governance in the developing world and undermines the

governmental infrastructure in developing countries.1 1 1

69. In this case, Taib's corruption has reduced the governmental resources available to Malaysian

peoples. In Mutang's case, the corruption fundamentally undermined the governmental infrastructure

and democratic protections that he relied on, causing him to flee to Canada as a refugee after the Taib

regime arrested him due to his political activities, 12 The interests of justice favour disclosure aimed at

counteracting Taib's corruption and its widespread impacts. They also .favour disclosure of evidence

to evaluate a potential private prosecution.

70. The right to commence a private prosecution is an ancient common law right that was recognized

by federal statute in 1869 and incorporated into the original Criminal Code of 1892.1 13 The Supreme

Court of Canada has recognized that the right of any person to commence a criminal proceeding by

laying an infOrmation against an offender is "a fundamental precept" and a "fundamental and historical

right,"114 Canadian courts are therefore loath to interfere with the right of private prosecution.1 1'

71. Similarly, the House of Lords has held that a private prosecution provides a remedy for individuals

who wish to see the law entbrced and "remains a valuable constitutional safeguard against inertia or

partiality on the part of authority."1 1' Private prosecutions benefit society as a whole by providing some

Karigar at pants 24 and 34, BOA, Tab 20; Ni/co Resources at para IS BOA, Tab 21; GrUjiths !nerd' at para 8, BOA, Tab 22; CorruptionForeign Public Officials Act, SC 1995, c 34.SiMunman Affidavit at parts 12-13, MR Vol. I. pp. 17-18.

1 13 Canada, Law Rennin Commission, Private Prosecutions, Working Paper 52 (Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1986) at 33-34, 1.30A,Tab 15 [1:R(: Report]; Courier at pant 79, BOA, 'LW 11; .f.echassein. at para 261, BOA, T,11) 9; roTecting the chilies oliustices of McPeace, out 0/ Sessions, in relation to persons charged with Indictable Otknces, SC 180, c 30, s. I; Criminal Code., SC 1892, e 29, s, 558; JohnSwaigen et at, "Private Prosecutions Revisited: The Continuing Importance of Private Prosecutions in Protecting the. Environment," (2013) 26 JELP3l at 35, BOA, Tab 16 [Swaigen el al].(litc w (Attorney General) 1 Lechasscur el al,

[1981] 2 SCR 253 at 1-)Ira 261, BOA, Tab 9 [Lechassend• Iii Dowson, [1983] 2 SCR 144 at part

1 55, BOA, Tab 10.Ontario Really Cop a Sanford, 2003 CarswellOnt 2902 at para 64 (Sup Ct J.), BOA, Tab 12 [Sanford].Gonrict Union Of Post Office t torhers, [1977] 3 All ER 70 at pall' 79 (Lord Wilberforce) and 97 (Lord Diplock) (HE), BOA, Tab 1 1 [Correct].

-

additional control over official discretion. -7' More generally, Canadian courts have recognized that the

correct disposal of a criminal investigation is an important public interest."8

72. The procedure of a private prosecution also provides safeguards that weigh in favour of granting

the Norwich Application. If the applicants proceed to a pre-enquete based on any disclosed

information, the pre-enquete will be heard by an independent judicial officer who will assess whether

there is evidence of each essential element of each criminal offence.1 19 Only if the judicial officer is

satisfied that the applicants have demonstrated reasonable grounds that a criminal prosecution will

move forward. The pre-enquete will proceed in private, thereibre minimizing (if not eliminating) any

undue publicity or attention that may be placed on the target parties prior to judicial authorization to

proceed with any private prosecution.

73. Courts have also recognized that the nature and apparent strength of an applicant's case should be

weighed in determining the interests of justice.129 Here, the evidence advanced by the applicants is

extensive, well-documented, largely unchallenged and, considered in its totality, presents a clear

picture of corruption and potential money laundering in Canada warranting the disclosure sought,

74. There are also no Charter issues engaged by the iVon rich Pharmacal order sought by the applicants

including in respect of the section 8 Charter right regarding unreasonable search and seizure. As

detailed at paragraph 101 above, the Charter does not apply to actions taken by the applicants at all. In

any event, the Supreme Court has held that section 8 rights protect a "biographical core of personal

infOrmation" that includes "information which tends to reveal intimate details of the lifestyle and

1 14 LRC Report at 3 & 28, BOA, Tab I 1 .,S7ewar/ at paras 132-131, BOA, Tab 31.

''',Ilefhtie at pard 74, BOA, Tab 17.12',S'fewaii at para 137, BOA, Tab 31; ,S'iraka at pare 53, BOA, '1..ab 5.

-25

personal choices of the individual." In contrast, commercial records that do not tend to reveal such

information have a weak connection, if any, to the Charier values underlying s. 8.121

75. Here, the applicants are seeking access to financial records that pertain to the Sakto Group of

corporate entities, which the OECD has confirmed are multinational enterprises subject to OECD

guidelines including regarding transparency. They are not seeking access to personal banking, credit

or other information that would tend to reveal intimate details of the lifestyle and personal choices of

Jamilah, Murray, or other individuals. Accordingly, even if the Charter was engaged at all (it is not),

any Charter-based privacy interest would be inherently limited and should yield to the pressing public

interests that the applicants have identified.

D. Conclusion

76. The applicants submit that obtaining intbrmation required to evaluate whether there are reasonable

grounds for a private prosecution is a legitimate purpose for a Norwich Pharmoca/ order. The

applicants have met the test for a Norwich Pharmacal order and disclosure should therefore be ordered.

PART 0, - RELIEF SOUGHT

77. The applicants respectfully request the draft order attached hereto as Schedule "D".

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

January 26, 2018

Li n c In Cayl rMaureen M. N, ..ard

1 21 R v Plant, [1993] 3 SCR 281 at para 293, BOA, Tab 92.

-

BENNETT JONES LLP3400 One First Canadian PlaceP.O. Box 130Toronto ON M5X 1A4

Lincoln Caylor (#37030L)cavlorl(a).bennettioncs.com

Maureen M. Ward (#44065Q)Email: NV ardm0)bennettjones.com

Telephone: (416) 863-1200Facsimile: (416) 863-1716

Lawyers .for the Applicants

SCHEDULE "A"

SCHEDULE "A"

1 James S. Mallet, Enforcing Environmental Lan': A Guide to Private Prosecution, 2nd ed

(Edmonton: Environmental Law Centre, 2004)

2. R v S'torrev, [1990] 1 SCR 241

3. Gil Group AG v. Velum Group Co., 2009 ONCA 619

4. isoto. ton S.A. v. Toronto Dominion Bank (c.o.b. D Canada:1'1ms°, 2007 CarswellOnt 2741

(Sup Ct

5. Straka v Humber River Regional Hospital, 2000 CarswellOnt 41 14 (CA)

6. P v T Ltd, [1997] 4 All ER 200 (Ch Div)

7. RvAl cHa le, 2010 ONCA 361

8. OECD, OECD Guidelines /Or Multinational Enterprises (2011), Section III — Disclosure

9 /? v 1 "amp/wily., 201 1 ONCA 397

10. Quebec (Attorney General) i' Lechasscur el al, [1981] 2 SCR 253

1 1. R i' Do ws'on, [1983] 2 SCR 144

12. Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers, [1977] 3 All ER 70 (1-IL)

1 3. Ontario Realty Corp i' ,S'anibrd, 2003 CarswellOnt 2902 (Sup Ct .1)

v Ambrosi, 2012 BCSC 1261

1 5. R v Hu, 2014 ONSC 107

1 6. Canada, Law Reform Commission, Private Prosecutions, Working Paper 52 (Ottawa: Law

Reform Commission of Canada, 1986)

1 7, John Swaigen et at, "Private Prosecutions Revisited: The Continuing Importance of Private

Prosecutions in Protecting the Environment," (2013) 26 JEEP 31

1 8. Financial Times Ltd c< Ors v interbrew SA, [2002] EWCA Civ 274

19. Ashworth Security Hospital v _AIGN Limited, [2002] UKHL 29

20. Work/ Bank Group v. Wallace, 2016 SCC 15

21 , 1? v Darich, 2016 ONCA 141

A - 2,

22. By Karigar, 2()14 ONSC 3093

23. IZ y Niko Resources Ltd, 2011 CarswellAlta 2521 (QB)

24. R v Griffiths Energy linevnational, [2013] AJ No 412 (QB)

25. Peter Burns, "Private Prosecutions in Canada: The Law and a Proposal for Change," (1975)

2 1 McGill 1_,J 269

26. r Thornton, 2016 ONCA 562

27. R v Thornton, 2014 ON SC 3432

28. Ontario (Attorney General) v 615 Stanley Street, 2010 ONSC 1229

29. Ontario (Attorney General) i' 'Tiro Financial ffisiffittions, 2010 ONSC 47

30. Hill v Church of Scientology, [1995] 2 SCR 1 130

31. R r Buhay, 2003 SCC 30

32. Podo/sky r Cadillac Fairyiew Corp, 2012 ONCJ 545, 122 OR (3d) 22

33, 1654776 Ontario Ltd r Sten'art, 2013 ONCA 184

34. R v Bow Sire(,) Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex pane South Coast Shipping Co

Ltd (1992), (1993) 96 Cr App R 405 (QB (Div Ct))

35. Podotyky r Cadillac FUirliell' Corp, 2013 ONC.1 65, 75 CLLR (3d) 1

36. Southern Inc r Ontario, 1990 CarswellOnt 952 (CA)

B c Lamontagne, 1999 CarswellQue 4739 (CA)

38. R v Geaurreatt, 1 19821 1 SCR 485

39, R v Nguyen, 2013 ONSC 605

40. Germany (Federal Republic) v Schreiber, 2006 CarswellOnt 5823 (CA)

41. R v Tri-7 ex Sales (t),,_ Services Ltd, 2006 CarswellNfld 226 (Prov Div)

42. 1? v Safety-Kleen Canada Inc, 1997 CarswellOnt '736 (CA)

43. R c 1-)(;troles Global inc, 2013 QCCS 4262

44. R v Plant [1993] 3 SCR 281

45. Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), 2002 SCC 41

SCHEDULE "B"

SCHEDULE "B"

SECTIONS 96 AND 137 OF THE COURTS' OF JUSTICE A CT, RSO 1990, C C.43

Section 96

Rules (.)f/cal, and equity

96. (1) Courts shall administer concurrently all rules of equity and the common law. R.S.O. 1990.c. C.43, s. 96 (1); 1993, c. 27, Sched.

Rifles of equity to prevail

(2) Where a rule of equity conflicts with a rule of the common law, the rule of equity prevails.R,S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 96 (2); 1993, c. 27, Sched.

Jurisdiction for equitable relief

(3) Only the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Justice, exclusive of the Small ClaimsComet, may grant equitable relief, unless otherwise provided. 1994, c. 12, s. 38; 1996, c. 25, s. 9(17),

Section 22

Person counselling offence

22 (1) Where a person counsels another person to be a party to an offence and that other person isafterwards a party to that offence, the person who counselled is a party to that offence,notwithstanding that the offence was committed in a way different from that which was counselled.

(2) Every one who counsels another person to be a party to an offence is a party to every offencethat the other commits in consequence of the counselling that the person who counselled knew orought to have known was likely to be committed in consequence of the counselling.

Definition of counsel

(3) For the purposes of this Act, counsel includes procure, solicit or incite.

Offences of negligence ----- organizations

22.1 in respect of an offence that requires the prosecution to prove negligence, an organization isa party to the offence if

(a) acting within the scope of their authority

(i) one of its representatives is a party to the offence, or

B - 2

(ii) two or more of its representatives engage in conduct, whether by act oromission, such that, if it had been the conduct of only one representative, thatrepresentative would have been a party to the offence; and

(b) the senior officer who is responsible for the aspect of the organization's activities thatis relevant to the offence departs or the senior officers, collectively, depart markedlyfrom the standard of care that, in the circumstances, could reasonably be expected toprevent a representative of the organization from being a party to the offence.

2003, c. 21, s. 2.

Other offences organizations

22.2 In respect of an offence that requires the prosecution to prove fault other than negligence an organization is a party to the offence if, with the intent at least in part to benefit theorganization, one of its senior officers

(a) acting within the scope of their authority, is a party to the offence;

(b) having the mental state required to be a party to the offence and acting within the scopeof their authority, directs the work of other representatives of the organization so that theydo the act or make the omission specified in the offence; or

(c) knowing that a representative of the organization is or is about to be a party to theoffence, does not take all reasonable measures to stop them from being a party to theoffence.

2003, c. 21, s. 2.

Section 121(1)

Frauds on the government

121 (1) Every one commits an offence who

(a) directly or indirectly

(i) gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to an official or to any member of hisfamily, or to any one for the benefit of an official, or

(ii) being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any personfor himself or another person,

a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance,exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with

(iii) the transaction of business with or any matter of business relating to thegovernment, or

13-3

(iv) a claim against Her Majesty or any benefit that Her Majesty is authorized or isentitled to bestow,

whether or not, in fact, the official is able to cooperate, render assistance, exercise influence or door omit to do what is proposed, as the case may be;

(b) having dealings of any kind with the government, directly or indirectly pays acommission or reward to or confers an advantage or benefit of any kind on an employee orofficial of the government with which the dealings take place, or to any member of theemployee's or official's family, or to anyone for the benefit of the employee or official,with respect to those dealings, unless the person has the consent in writing of the head ofthe branch of government with which the dealings take place;

(c) being an official or employee of the government, directly or indirectly demands, acceptsor offers or agrees to accept from a person who has dealings with the government acommission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person,unless they have the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government thatemploys them or of which they are an affici al;

(d) having or pretending to have influence with the government or with a minister of thegovernment or an official, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees toaccept, for themselves or another person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind asconsideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of' influence or an act or omission inconnection with

(i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or

(ii) the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office;

(e) directly or indirectly gives or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to a minister of thegovernment or an official, or to anyone for the benefit of a minister or an official, a reward,advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise ofinfluence, or an act or omission, by that minister or official, in connection with

(i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or

(ii) the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office; or

(f) having made a tender to obtain a contract with the government,

(i) directly or indirectly gives or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to another personwho has made a tender, to a member of that person's family or to another personfor the benefit of that person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind asconsideration for the withdrawal of the tender of that person, or

(ii) directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept fromanother person who has made a tender a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind

B - 4

for themselves or another person as consideration for the withdrawal of their owntender.

Contractor subscribing to election flind

(2) Every one commits an offence who, in order to obtain or retain a contract with the government,or as a term of any such contract, whether express or implied, directly or indirectly subscribes orgives, or agrees to subscribe or give, to any person any valuable consideration

(a) for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate or a class or party of candidatesto Parliament or the legislature of a province; or

(b) with intent to influence or affect in any way the result of an election conducted for thepurpose of electing persons to serve in Parliament or the legislature of a province.

Punishment

(3) Every one who commits an offence under this section is guilty of an indictable offence andliable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Section 122

Breach of trust by public officer

122 Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach oftrust is guilty or an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fiveyears, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed inrelation to a private person.

Section 354

Possession of property obtained by crime

354 (1) Every one commits an offence who has in his possession any property or thing or anyproceeds of any property or thing knowing that all or part of property or thing or of the proceedswas obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from

(a) the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or

(h) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constitutedan offence punishable by indictment.

Obliterated vehicle identification number

(2) In proceedings in respect of an offence under subsection (1), evidence that a person has in hispossession a motor vehicle the vehicle identification number of which has been wholly or partiallyremoved or obliterated or a part of a motor vehicle being a part bearing a vehicle identificationnumber that has been wholly or partially removed or obliterated is, in the absence of any evidenceto the contrary, proof that the motor vehicle or part, as the case may be, was obtained, and that

B - 5

such person had the motor vehicle or part, as the case may be, in his possession knowing that itwas obtained,

(a) by the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or

(b) by an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would haveconstituted an offence punishable by indictment.

Definition of vehicle identification number

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), vehicle identification number means any number or othermark placed on a motor vehicle for the purpose of distinguishing the motor vehicle from othersimilar motor vehicles.

Exception

(4) A peace officer or a person acting under the direction of a peace officer is not guilty o.' anoffence under this section by reason only that the peace officer or person possesses property or athing or the proceeds of property or a thing mentioned in subsection (1) for the purposes of aninvestigation or otherwise in the execution of the peace officer's duties.

Section 380

Fraud

380 (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a falsepretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained ornot, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceedingfburteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or thevalue of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five. thousand dollars; or

(b) is guilty

(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceedingtwo years, or

(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,

where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed live thousand dollars.

Minimum punishment

(1.1) When a person is prosecuted on indictment and convicted of one or more offences referredto in subsection (1), the court that imposes the sentence shall impose a minimum punishment ofimprisonment for a term of two years if the total value of the subject-matter of the offences exceedsone million dollars,

C3- 6

Affecting public market

(2) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a falsepretence within the meaning of this Act, with intent to defraud, affects the public market price ofstocks, shares, merchandise or anything that is offered for sale to the public is guilty of anindictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Sections 462.3 & 462.31

PART XII.2 Proceeds of Crime

Interpretation

Definitions

462.3 (1) In this Part,

designated drug oijenee[Repealed, 1996, c. 19, s. 68]

designated of ence means

(a) any offence that may be prosecuted as an indictable offence under this or any other Actof Parliament, other than an indictable offence prescribed by regulation, or

(b) a conspiracy or an attempt to commit, being an accessory after the fact in relation to, orany counselling in relation to, an offence referred to in paragraph (a); (infraction designee)

designated substance oflence[Repealed, 2001, c. 32, s. 12]

ewe/prise crime offence[Repealed, 2001, c. 32, s. 12]

judge means a judge as defined in section 552 or a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction;

(loge)

proceeds of crime means any property, benefit or advantage, within or outside Canada, obtainedor derived directly or indirectly as a result of

(a) the commission in Canada of a designated offence, or

(b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituteda designated offence. (prodults de la eriminalite)

Regulations

(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing indictable offences that areexcluded ifrom the definition designated offence in subsection (1).

Powers of Attorney General of Canada

B - 7

(3) Despite the definition .11toi•ney General in section 2, the Attorney General of Canada may

(a) exercise all the powers and perform all the duties and functions assigned to the AttorneyGeneral by or under this Act in respect of a designated offence if the alleged offence arisesout of conduct that in whole or in part is in relation to an alleged contravention of an Actof Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act, other than this Act or a regulationmade under this Act; and

(b) conduct proceedings and exercise all the powers and perform all the duties andfunctions assigned to the Attorney General by or under this Act in respect of

(i) an offence referred to in section 354, 355.2, 355.4 or 462.31, if the allegedoffence arises out of conduct that in whole or in part is in relation to an allegedcontravention of an Act of Parliament, other than this Act, or a regulation madeunder such an Act, and

(ii) an offence under subsection 462.33(11) if the restraint order was made onapplication of the Attorney General of Canada.

Powers of Attorney General of a province

(4) Subsection (3) does not affect the authority of the Attorney General of a province to conductproceedings in respect of a designated offence or to exercise any of the powers or perform any ofthe duties and Functions assigned to the Attorney General by or under this Act.

Offence

Laundering proceeds of crime

462.31 (1) Every one commits an offence who uses, transfers the possession of, sends or deliversto any person or place, transports, transmits, alters, disposes of or otherwise deals with, in anymanner and by any means, any property or any proceeds of any property with intent to conceal orconvert that property or those proceeds, knowing or believing that all or a part of that property orof those proceeds was obtained OF derived directly or indirectly as a result of

(a) the commission in Canada of a designated offence; or

(b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituteda designated offence.

Punishment

(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceedingten years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

B-8

Exception

(3) A peace officer or a person acting under the direction of a peace officer is not guilty of anoffence under subsection (1) if the peace officer or person does any of the things mentioned in thatsubsection for the purposes of an investigation or otherwise in the execution of the peace officer'sduties.

Section 487

Information for search warrant

487 (1) A justice who is satisfied by information on oath in Form 1 that there are reasonablegrounds to believe that there is in a building, receptacle or place

(a) anything on or in respect of which any offence against this Act or any other Act ofParliament has been or is suspected to have been committed,

(b) anything that there are reasonable grounds to believe will afford evidence with respectto the commission of an offence, or will reveal the whereabouts of a person who is believedto have committed an offence, against this Act or any other Act of Parliament,

(c) anything that there are reasonable grounds to believe is intended to be used for thepurpose of committing any offence against the person •for which a person may be arrestedwithout warrant, or

(c.1) any offence-related property,

may at any time issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer or a public officer who has beenappointed or designated to administer or enforce a 'federal or provincial law and whose dutiesinclude the enforcement of this Act or any other Act of Parliament and who is named in the warrant

(d) to search the building, receptacle or place for any such thing and to seize it, and

(e) subject to any other Act of Parliament, to, as soon as practicable, bring the thing seizedbefore, or make a report in respect thereof to, the justice or some other justice for the sameterritorial division in accordance with section 489.1 .

Endorsement of search warrant

(2) If the building, receptacle or place is in another territorial division, the justice may issue thewarrant with any modifications that the circumstances require, and it may be executed in the otherterritorial division after it has been endorsed, in Form 28, by a justice who has jurisdiction in thatterritorial division. The endorsement may be made on the original of the warrant or on a copy ofthe warrant transmitted by any means of telecommunication.

Operation of computer system and copying equipment

B - 9

(2.1) A person authorized under this section to search a computer system in'a building or place fordata may

(a) use or cause to be used any computer system at the building or place to search any datacontained in or available to the computer system;

(b) reproduce or cause to be reproduced any data in the form of a print-out or otherintelligible output;

(c) seize the print-out or other output for examination or copying; and

(d) use or cause to be used any copying equipment at the place to make copies of the dataL

Duty of person in possession or control

(2.2) Every person who is in possession or control of any building or place in respect of which asearch is carried out under this section shall, on presentation of the warrant, permit the personcarrying out the search

(a) to use or cause to be used any computer system at the building or place in order tosearch any data contained in or available to the computer system for data that the person isauthorized by this section to search for;

(b) to obtain a hard copy of the data and to seize it; and

(c) to use or cause to be used any copying equipment at the place to make copies of thedata.

Form

(3) A search warrant issued under this section may be in the -form set out as Form 5 in Part XXVIII,varied to suit the case.

Effect of endorsement

(4) An endorsement that is made in accordance with subsection (2) is sufficient authority to thepeace officers or public officers to whom the -warrant was originally directed, and to all peaceofficers within the jurisdiction of the .justice by whom it is endorsed, to execute the warrant and todeal with the things seized in accordance with section 489.1 or as otherwise provided by law.

Sections 504-507

Information, Summons and Warrant

In what cases justice may receive information

504 Any one who, on reasonable grounds, believes that a person has committed an indictableoffence may lay an information in writing and under oath before a justice, and the justice shallreceive the information, where it is alleged

B - 10

(a) that the person has committed, anywhere, an indictable offence that may be tried in theprovince in which the justice resides, and that the person

(i) is or is believed to be, or

(ii) resides or is believed to reside,

within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice;

(b) that the person, wherever he may be, has committed an indictable offence within theterritorial jurisdiction of the justice;

(c) that the person has, anywhere, unlawfully received property that was unlawfullyobtained within the territorial jurisdiction of the:justice; or

(d) that the person has in his possession stolen property within the territorial jurisdiction ofthe justice.

Time within which information to be laid in certain cases

505 Where

(a) an appearance notice has been issued to an accused under section 496, or

(b) an accused has been released from custody under section 497 or 498,

an information relating to the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused or relatingto all included or other offence alleged to have been committed by him shall be laid before a justiceas soon as practicable thereafter and in any event befbre the time stated in the appearance notice,promise to appear or recognizance issued to or given or entered into by the accused for hisattendance in court.

Form

506 An information laid under section 504 or 505 may be in Form 2.

Justice to hear informant and witnesses - public prosecutions

507 (1) Subject to subsection 523(1,1), a justice who receives an information laid under section504 by a peace officer, a public officer, the Attorney General or the Attorney General's agent,other than an information laid before the justice under section 505, shall, except if an accused hasalready been arrested with or without a warrant,

(a) hear and consider, CA pane,

(i) the allegations of the informant, and

(ii) the evidence of witnesses, where he considers it desirable or necessary to do so;and

B - 1 1

(b) where he considers that a case for so doing is made out, issue, in accordance with thissection, either a summons or a warrant for the arrest of the accused to compel the accusedto attend before him or some other justice for the same territorial division to answer to acharge o f an offence.

Process compulsory

(2) No justice shall refuse to issue a summons or warrant by reason only that the alleged offenceis one for which a person may be arrested without warrant.

Procedure when witnesses attend

(3) A justice who hears the evidence of a witness pursuant to subsection (1) shall

(a) take the evidence on oath; and

(b) cause the evidence to be taken in accordance with section 540 in so far as that sectionis capable of being applied.

Summons to be issued except in certain cases

(4) Where a justice considers that a case is made out for compelling an accused to attend beforehim to answer to a charge of an offence, he shall issue a summons to the accused unless theallegations of the informant or the evidence of any witness or witnesses taken in accordance withsubsection (3) discloses reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary in the public interest toissue a warrant for the arrest of the accused.

No process in blank

(5) A justice shall not sign a summons or warrant in blank.

Endorsement of warrant by justice

(6) A justice who issues a warrant under this section or section 508 or 512 may, unless the offenceis one mentioned in section 522, authorize the release of the accused pursuant to section 499 bymaking an endorsement on the warrant in Form 29.

Promise to appear or recognizance deemed to have been confirmed

(7) Where, pursuant to subsection (6), a justice authorizes the release of an accused pursuant tosection 499, a promise to appear given by the accused or a recognizance entered into by the accusedpursuant to that section shall be deemed, for the purposes of subsection 145(5), to have beenconfirmed by a justice under section 508.

Issue of summons or warrant

(8) Where, on an appeal from or review of any decision or matter of jurisdiction, a new trial orhearing, or a continuance or renewal of a trial or hearing is ordered, a justice may issue either a

B - 12

ST1111111011S or a warrant fOr the arrest of the accused in order to compel the accused to attend at thenew or continued or renewed trial or hearing.

Referral when private prosecution

507.1 (1) A justice who receives an information laid under section 504, other than an informationreferred to in subsection 507(1), shall refer it to a provincial court judge or, in Quebec, a judge ofthe Court of Quebec, or to a designated justice, to consider whether to compel the appearance ofthe accused on the information.

Summons or warrant

(2) A judge or designated justice to whom an information is referred under subsection (1) and whoconsiders that a case tor doing so is made out shall issue either a summons or warrant for the arrestof the accused to compel him or her to attend before a justice to answer to a charge of the offencecharged in the information.

Conditions for issuance

(3) The judge or designated justice may issue a summons or warrant only if he or she

(a) has heard and considered the allegations of the informant and the evidence of witnesses;

(b) is satisfied that the Attorney General has received a copy of the information;

(c) is satisfied that the Attorney General has received reasonable notice of the hearingunder paragraph (a); and

(d) has given the Attorney General an opportunity to attend the hearing under paragraph(a) and to cross-examine and call witnesses and to present any relevant evidence at thehearing.

Appearance of Attorney General

(4) The Attorney General may appear at the hearing held under paragraph (3)(a) without beingdeemed to intervene in the proceeding.

Information deemed not to have been laid

(5) If the judge or designated justice does not issue a summons or warrant under subsectio❑ (2), heor she shall endorse the information with a statement: to that effect. Unless the informant, not laterthan six months after the endorsement, commences proceedings to compel the judge or designatedjustice to issue a summons or warrant, the information is deemed never to have been laid.

Information deemed not to have been laid proceedings commenced

(6) If proceedings are commenced under subsection (5) and a summons or warrant is not issued asa result of those proceedings, the 'information is deemed never to have been laid.

B - 13

New evidence required for new hearing

(7) If a hearing in respect of an offence has been held under paragraph (3)(a) and the judge ordesignated justice has not issued a summons or a warrant, no other hearings may be held underthat paragraph with respect to the offence or an included offence unless there is new evidence insupport of the allegation in respect of which the hearing is sought to be held.

Subsections 507(2) to (8) to apply

(8) Subsections 507(2) to (8) apply to proceedings under this section.

Non-application int6rmations laid under sections 810 and 8 I 0.1

(9) Subsections (1) to (8) do not apply in respect of an information laid under section 810 or 810.1.

Definition of designated justice

(10) In this section, designated justice means a justice designated for the purpose by the chief judgeof the provincial court having jurisdiction in the matter or, in Quebec, a justice designated by thechief judge of the Court of Quebec.

Meaning ofilitorney General

(11) in this section, Attorney General includes the Attorney General of Canada and his or herlawful deputy in respect of proceedings that could have been commenced at the instance of theGovernment of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government.

Sections 698-703

Process

Subpoena

698 (1) Where a person is likely to give material evidence in a proceeding to which this Actapplies, a subpoena may be issued in accordance with this Part requiring that person to attend togive evidence.

Warrant in Form 17

(2) Where it is made to appear that a person who is likely to give material evidence

(a) will not attend in response to a subpoena if a subpoena is issued, or

(b) is evading service of a subpoena,

a court, justice or provincial court judge having power to issue a subpoena to require the attendanceof that person to give evidence, may issue a warrant in Form 17 to cause that person to be arrestedand to be brought to give evidence.

B - 14

Subpoena issued first

(3) Except where paragraph (2)(a) applies, a warrant in Form 17 shall not be issued unless asubpoena has first been issued.

Who may issue

699 (1) If a person is required to attend to give evidence before a superior court of criminaljurisdiction, a court of appeal, an appeal court or a court of criminal jurisdiction other than aprovincial court judge acting under Part XIX, a subpoena directed to that person shall he issuedOut of the court before which the attendance of that person is required.

Order of judge

(2) If a person is required to attend to give evidence before a provincial court judge acting underPart XIX or a summary conviction court under Part XXVII or in proceedings over which a justicehas jurisdiction, a subpoena directed to the person shall be issued

(a) by a provincial court judge or a justice, where the person whose attendance is requiredis within the province in which the proceedings were instituted; or

(b) by a provincial court judge or out of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction of theprovince in which the proceedings were instituted, where the person whose attendance isrequired is not within the province.

Order of judge

(3) A subpoena shall not be issued out of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction pursuant toparagraph (2)(b), except pursuant to an order of a judge of the court made on application by a partyto the proceedings.

Seal

(4) A subpoena or warrant that is issued by a court under this Part shall be under the seal of thecourt and shall be signed by a judge of the court or by the clerk of the court.

Signature

(5) A subpoena or warrant that is issued by a justice or provincial court judge under this Part shallbe signed by the justice or provincial court judge.

Sexual offences

(5,1) Notwithstanding anything in subsections (1) to (5), in the case of an offence referred to insubsection 278.2(1), a subpoena requiring a witness to bring to the court a record, the productionof which is governed by sections 278.1 to 278.91, must be issued and signed by a judge.

B - 15

Form of subpoena

(6) Subject to subsection (7), a subpoena issued under this Part may be in Form 16.

Form of subpoena in sexual offences

(7) In the case of an offence refrred to in subsection 278.2(1), a subpoena requiring a witness tobring anything to the court shall be in Form 16.1.

Contents of subpoena

700 (1) A subpoena shall require the person to whom it is directed to attend, at a time and place tobe stated in the subpoena, to give evidence and, if required, to bring with him anything that he hasin Ins possession or under his control relating to the subject-matter of the proceedings.

Witness to appear and remain

(2) A person who is served with a subpoena issued under this Part shall attend and shall remain inattendance throughout the proceedings unless he is excused by the presiding judge, justice orprovincial court judge.

Video links, etc.

700.1 (1) If a person is to give evidence under section 714.1 or 714.3 or under subsection 46(2) ofthe Canada Evidence Act - or is to give evidence or a statement pursuant to an order made undersection 22.2 of the utaal Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act at a place within thejurisdiction of a court referred to in subsection 699(1) or (2) where the technology is available, asubpoena shall be issued out of the court to order the person to give that evidence at such a place.

Sections of Criminal Code

(2) Sections 699, 700 and 701 to 703.2 apply, with any modifications that the circumstancesrequire, to a subpoena issued under this section.

Execution or Service of Process

Service

701 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a subpoena shall be served in a province by a peace officer orany other person who is qualified in that province to serve civil process, in accordance withsubsection 509(2), with such modifications as the circumstances require.

Personal service

(2) A subpoena that is issued pursuant to paragraph 699(2)(b) shall be served personally on theperson to whom it is directed.

B - 16

Service in accordance with provincial laws

701.1 Despite section 701, in any province„ service of a document may be made in accordancewith the laws of the province relating to offences created by the laws of that province.

Subpoena effective throughout Canada

702 (1) A subpoena that is issued by a provincial court judge or out of a superior court of criminaljurisdiction, a court of appeal, an appeal court or a court of criminal jurisdiction has effectanywhere in Canada according to its terms.

Subpoena effective throughout province

(2) A subpoena that is issued by a justice has effect anywhere in the province in which it is issued.

Warrant effective throughout Canada

703 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a warrant of arrest or committal that isissued out of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction, a court of appeal, an appeal court within themeaning of section 812 or a court of criminal jurisdiction other than a provincial court judge actingunder part XIX may be executed anywhere in Canada.

Warrant effective in a province

(2) Despite any other provision of this Act but subject to subsections 487.0551(2) and 705(3), awarrant of arrest or committal that is issued by a justice or provincial court judge may be executedanywhere in the province in which it is issued.

Summons effective throughout Canada

703.1 A summons may be served anywhere in Canada and, if served, is effective notwithstandingthe territorial jurisdiction of the authority that issued the summons.

Service of process on an organization

703.2 Where any summons, notice or other process is required to be or may be served on anorganization, and no other method of service is provided, service may be effected by delivery

(a) in the case of a municipality, to the mayor, warden, reeve or other chief officer of themunicipality, or to the secretary, treasurer or clerk of the municipality; and

(b) in the case of any other organization, to the manager, secretary or other senior officerof the organization or one of its branches.

B- 17

SECTION 1 OF AN ACT RESPECTING THE DUTIES OF JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, OUTOF SESSIONS, IN RELATION TO PERSONS CHARGED \will INDICTABLE OFFENCES,

SC .1869, C 30

1. In all cases where a charge or complaint (A) is made before any one or more of Her Majesty'sJustices of the Peace for any Territorial Division in Canada, that any person has committed, or issuspected to have committed, any treason or felony, or any indictable misdemeanor or offencewithin the limits of the jurisdiction of such Justice or Justices of the Peace, or that any personguilty or suspected to be guilty of having committed any such crime or offence elsewhere out ofthe jurisdiction of such Justice or Justices, is residing or being, or is suspected to reside or be withinthe limits of the jurisdiction of such Justice or Justices, then, and in every such case, if the personso charged or complained against is not in custody, such Justice or Justices of the Peace may issuehis or their Warrant (13) to apprehend such person, and to cause him to be brought before suchJ ustice or Justices, or any other justice or Justices for the same 'ferritoriLil Division.

SECTION 558 OF THE CRITIML CODE, SC 1892, C 29

558. Any one who, upon reasonable or probable grounds, believes that any person has committedan indictable offence against this Act may make a complaint or lay an information in writing andunder oath before any magistrate or justice of the peace having jurisdiction to issue a warrant orsummons against such accused person in respect of such offence.

2. Such complaint or information may be in the form C in schedule one hereto, or to the like effect.

SECTIONS 8 AND 32 OF THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS :IAD liREEDOMS, PART1 OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT 1982, BEING SCHEDULE B TO THE CANADA /ICI' 1982

(UK), 1982, C 11

Search or seizure

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Application of Charter

32. (1) This Charter applies

(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within theauthority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and NorthwestTerritories; and

(h) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within theauthority of the legislature of each province.

B - 18

SECTION 2 OF AN ACT TO AMEND TI-IF CRIMINAL CODE, THE FOOD AND DRUGSACT AND THE NARCOTIC CONTROL ACT, SC 1988, C 51

2. The said Act [the Criminal Code] is .further amended by adding thereto, immediately aftersection 420 thereof; the following headings and sections:

"PART X. IPROCEEDS OF CRIME

bite/pre/a/ion

420.1 In this Part,

"designated drug offence" means

(a) an offence against section 34, 37.2, 37.3, 42, 44.2 or 44.3 of the Food and Drags del,

(b) an offence against section 4, 5, 6, 11.1 or 11.2 of the Narcotic Control Act, or

(c) a conspiracy or an attempt to commit, being an accessory after the fact in relation to, orany counselling in relation to, an offence referred to in paragraph (a) or (b);

"enterprise crime offence" means

(a) an offence against any of the following provisions, namely,

(i) section 108 (bribery of judicial officers, etc.),

(ii) section 109 (bribery of officers),

(iii) section 1 10 (frauds upon the government),

(iv) section 1 1 1 (breach of trust by public officer),

(v) section 159 (corrupting morals),

(vi) subsection 185(1) (keeping gaming or betting house),

(vii) section 186 (betting, pool-selling, book-making, etc.),

(viii) section 193 (keeping common bawdy-house),

(ix) section 195 (procuring),

(x) section 218 (punishment for murder),

(xi) section 294 (punishment for theft),

B - 19

(xii) section 303 (punishment for robbery),

(xiii) section 305 (extortion),

(xiv) section 325 (punishment for forgery),

(xv) section 326 (uttering forged document),

(xvi) section 338 (fraud),

(xvii) section 340 (fraudulent manipulation of stock exchange transactions),

(xviii) section 383 (secret commissions),

(xix) section 389 (arson),

(xx) section 407 (making counterfeit money),

(xxi) section 408 (possession, etc., of counterfeit money),

(xxii) section 410 (uttering, etc., counterfeit money), or

(xxiii) section 420.11 (laundering proceeds of crime),

(h) an offence against section 312 (possession of property obtained by crime), committedin relation to any property, thing or proceeds obtained or derived directly or indirectly as aresult of

(i) the commission in Canada of an offence referred to in paragraph (a) or adesignated drug offence, or

(ii) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would haveconstituted an offence referred to in paragraph (a) or a designated drug offence, or

(c) a conspiracy or an attempt to commit-, being an accessory after the fact in relation to, orany counselling in relation to, an offence referred to in paragraph (a) or (b);

"judge" means a judge as defined in section 482 or a judge of a superior court of criminaljurisdiction;

"proceeds of crime" means any property, benefit or advantage, within or outside Canada, obtainedor derived directly or indirectly as a result of

(a) the commission in Canada of an enterprise crime offence or a designated drug offence,Or

(b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constitutedan enterprise crime offence or a designated drug offence.

B - 20

Olience

420.1 1 (1) Every one commits an offence who uses, transfers the possession of, sends or deliversto any person or place, transports, transmits, alters, disposes of or otherwise deals with, in anymanner and by any means, any property or any proceeds of any property with intent to conceal orconvert that property or those proceeds and knowing that all or a part of that property or of thoseproceeds was obtained or derived directly or indirectly as a result of

(a) the commission in Canada of an enterprise crime offence or a designated drug offence;or

(b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constitutedan enterprise crime offence or a designated drug offence.

(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (I)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceedingten years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

SECTION 29 OF THE CRLIILNAL 14TY AMENDMENT ACT, 1975, SC 1974-75-76, C 93

29. Section 312 of the said Act [the Criminal Code] is repealed and the following substitutedtherethr:

"312. (1) Every one commits an offence who has in his possession any property or thing or anyproceeds of any property or thing knowing that all or part of the property or thing or of the proceedswas obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from

(a) the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or

(b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would haveconstituted an offence punishable by indictment.

(2) In proceedings in respect of an offence vehicle identification under subsection (1), evidencethat a person number has in his possession a motor vehicle the vehicle identification number ofwhich has been wholly or partially removed or obliterated or a part of a motor vehicle being a partbearing a vehicle identi.fication number that has been wholly or partially removed or obliterated is,in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the motor vehicle or part, as the case maybe, was obtained, and that such person had the motor vehicle or part, as the case may be, in hispossession knowing that it was obtained,

(a) by the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or

(b) by an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would haveconstituted an offence punishable by indictment.

B - 21

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), identification number" "vehicle identification number"means any defined number or other mark placed upon a motor vehicle for the purpose ofclistinunshin)", the motor vehicle from other similar motor vehicles."

SCHEDULE "C"

SCHEDULE "C"

The Sakto-Group

Sakto Development Corporation

Sakto Corporation

Sakto Investment Corporation (dissolved in 2015)

City Gate International Corporation (dissolved in 2015)

Glowell Development Corporation (dissolved in 1993)

Urban Sky Investments Ltd.

Urban Sky Europe Ltd.

1041229 Ontario Inc.

1575 Carling Limited

Hawkhurst Island Holding Ltd. (dissolved in 2015)

Adelaide Ottawa Corporation

Preston Building, Holding Corporation

Tower One Holding Corporation

Tower Two Holding Corporation

Waterford Property Group Ltd.

Prime Median Holdings Inc.

Astir Properties Ltd. British Virgin Islands

Tagus Investments Limited, British Virgin Islands

Tess Investments Limited, British Virgin Islands

Rich:fold Investment Limited, Hong Kong

Sogo Holdings Limited, Jersey

Ridgeford Properties Limited, UK

Ridgeford Developments Limited, UK.

Sakti International Corporation, USA

SCHEDULE "C"

Sakti International Holdings, USA

Wallysons Inc., USA

W.A. Everett Inc., USA

W.A. Boylston Inc., USA

Sitchost Pty Limited, Australia

SCHEDULE "D"

SCHEDULE "D" — DRAFT ORDER

Court File No. CV-17-578681-00CL

ONTIRIOSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

(Commercial List)

THE HONOURABLE

B ETWFEN:

DAY, THE DAY

OF ,2018

BRUNO-MANSER-FONDS, Association for the Peoples of the Rainforestand MUTANG URUD

- and -

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, TORONTO-DOWNION BANK,MANULIFE FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND

DELOITTE & TOUCHE

Applicants

Respondents

ORDER

THIS APPLICATION was heard on February 5 and 6, 2018 at 330 University Avenue,

Toronto, Ontario.

ON READING the notice of application of the applicants and the materials filed by the

applicants, respondents and the "Interested Parties", Jamilah H. Taib, Scan Murray, Sakto

Development Corporation, Sakto Corporation, City Gate :International Corporation, Urban Sky

Investments Ltd., Urban Sky Europe Ltd, 1041229 Ontario Inc., 1575 Carling Limited, Hawkhurst

Island Holding Ltd., Adelaide Ottawa Corporation, Preston Building Holding Corporation, Tower One

holding Corporation, Tower Two Holding Corporation, Waterford Property Group Ltd Prime Median

Holdings Inc., Ridgeford Properties Limited, Ridgeford Developments Limited, Wallysons inc. and

Sitehost Pty Limited, including the factums of the parties and the affidavit of Lukas Straumann sworn

June 27, 2017, and on hearing the submissions of counsel for the applicants, respondents and the

Interested Parties:

THIS COURT ORDERS that Manulife Financial Corporation ("Manulife"), Royal Bank of

Canada ("RBC") and Toronto Dominion Bank ("TD"), and their respective subsidiaries and

affiliates disclose to the applicants any account information and particulars, as described in

paragraph 2 of this Order, with respect to:

(a) Accounts held by the corporate entities set out in Schedule A to this order; and

(b) corporate accounts over which Abdul Taib Mahmud ("Taib"), Jamilah Taib Murray,

Sean Murray, and/or 0111.1. Bin Mahmud (collectively defined together with Taib and the

companies listed at Schedule A as the "Taib Entities") have authority to conduct

transactions and accounts for any entity or individual appearing to act on their behalf.

The information referred to in paragraph I shall include but not be limited to information: with

respect to Mantifile, the mortgages which are set out in Schedule B to this Order; with respect to

RBC, the mortgages which are set out in Schedule C to this Order; and with respect to TD, the

mortgages which are set out in Schedule D to this order.

3. THIS COURT ORDERS that "account intbrmation and particulars" as required in paragraph 1

of this Order shall include the following:

(a) the entire file in relation to the corporate mortgages/loans where the Taib Entities are a

party, including but not limited to, the mortgages which arc described in Schedules B, C

and 1) to this Order;

(b) information, documents and account statements that relate to:

(i) accounts that the Taib Entities have authority over;

(ii) the ultimate source of the funds used to acquire the assets held by or for the

benefit of the Taib Entities;

the inflow of funds to the Taib Entities, particularly any funds advanced by

shareholders or other parties with connections to Malaysia and/or Taib;

(iv) the identity of any shareholders for any of the corporate Taib Entities;

(v) the ultimate source of any down-payment on properties of the Taib Entities;

(vi) the ultimate source of the funds used to repay debts, loans or mortgages owed by

the Taib Entities to the respondents; and

(vii) the circumstances surrounding, and particulars of, real estate transactions and

mortgages negotiated by the Taib Entities.

4. THIS COURT ORDERS that Deloitte & Touche ("Delaitte") provide to the applicants the

following:

(a) access to, and copies if requested, of any documents in Deloitte's possession relating to

the accounting, auditing or any other services provided to Sakto Development

4

Corporation, Sakti International Corporation or any of the Taib Entities to which Deloitte

provided services from the commencement of any relationship to present;

(b) copies of any financial statements and related financial documents for any of the

corporate Taib Entities; and

(c) the identity of any shareholders 16r any of the Taib Entities.

5. THIS COURT ORDERS that the respondents shall comply with this Order as soon as

reasonably practicable.

6. THIS COURT ORDERS that to the extent the applicants request copies of documents

responsive to this Order they shall pay for the reasonable photocopying costs associated with

complying with this Order.

7. THIS COURT ORDERS that this Order is in effect until further order of the Court and is

without prejudice to the applicants or respondents to seek clarification of, or a variation of, this

Order with reasonable notice.

5

SCHEDULE "it

Sakto Development Corporation

Sakto Corporation

Sakto Investment Corporation (dissolved in 2015)

City Gate International Corporation (dissolved in 2015)

Glowell Development Corporation (dissolved in 1993)

Urban Sky Investments Ltd.

Urban Sky Europe Ltd.

1041229 Ontario Inc.

1 575 Carling Limited

I-lawkhurst Island Holding Ltd. (dissolved in 2015)

Adelaide Ottawa Corporation

Preston Building, Holding Corporation

Tower One Holding Corporation

Tower Two Holding Corporation

WaterfOrd Property Group Ltd.

Prime Median Holdings Inc.

Astar Properties Ltd, British Virgin Islands

Tagus Investments Limited, British Virgin Islands

Tess Investments Limited, British Virgin Islands

Rich fold Investment Limited, Hong Kong

Sogo Holdings Limited, Jersey

Ridgeford Properties Limited, UK

Ridgeford Developments Limited, UK

Sakti international Corporation, USA

Sakti International Holdings, USA

Wallysons Inc., USA

W.A. Everett Inc., USA

W.A. Boylston Inc., USA

Sitehost Pty Limited, Australia

-7

SCHEDULE "B"

The Mannlife lortgages/Loans

DATE PIN # INSTRUMENT #CHARGER

(BORROWER)CILARGEE(I:ENDER)

AMOUNT$ CND

1 9/09/2003 04104-0398 0C248221Tower One Flo Id

in-(,,,,

CorporationManulife 13,000,000

19/09/200304104-0396

&04104-0397

0C248231 Sakto Corporation Man uli -Fe 1 , 000, 000,,

14/04/200404104-0396

&04104-0397

0C318709& 0C318709Schedule A

Sakto Corporation Mannlife 15,000,000

14/04/2004 04104-03990C318707& 0C318707Schedule 11

Adelaide OttawaCorporation

1Vla1iulife 15,000,000

14/04/2004 04104-039800318708& 0C3 I $708Schedule A

Tower One Holding'

CorporationI\4anu1ife 15,000,000

14/04/200404104-0396

&04104-0397

0C318709& 0C318709Schedule A

Sakto Corporation Mannlife 15 000 000- , ,

1 4/04/2004 04104-03980C3 18708& 00318708Schedule A

Tower One Holdin,'

CorporationVl anuli re 15,000,000

1 4/04/2004 04104-039900560626& 00560626Schedule A

Adelaide OttawaCorporation

Manuli re 45,000,000

03/02/2006 04104-039800560627& 00560627Schedule A

Tower One HoldingCorporation

Mannlife 45,000,000

03/02/2006 04104-0400 00560622Tower Two Holding

CorporationMannlife 45,000,000

1 1/04/2008 04104-0398 0C248221Tower One Holding

CorporationMann life 13,000,000

8

DATE PIN # INSTRUMENT #CHARGER

(1301ZROWER)ClIARGEE

(SENDER)AMOUNT$ CND

16/09/2008 04104-04300C903223&0C903223Schedule A

Tower One holdingCorporation

Manulife 13,000,000

16/09/2008 04104-0434 0C903269Adelaide Ottawa

ManuliCorporation

re 15,000,000

1 6/09/2008 04104-0429 0C903234 Sakto Corporation Manulife 13,000,000

1 6/09/2008 04104-04290E7903263& 0C903263Schedule A

Sakto Corporation Manulife 15,000,000

1 6/09/2008 04104-042900903317& 0C903317Schedule A

Sakto Corporation Manulife 45,000,000

1 6/09/2008 04104-04310C903311& 0C90331 1Schedule A

Adelaide OttawaCorporation

Manulife 45,000,000

1 6/09/2008 04104-04340C903242& 0C903242Schedule A

Adelaide OttawaCorporation

Manulife 13,000,000

16/09/2008 04104-04340C903326& 0C903326Schedule A

Adelaide OttawaCorporation

Manulife 45,000 000

16/09/2008 04104-0430 0C903306,Tower One Holding

CorporationManulife 45,000,000

16/09/2008 04104-04300C903254& 0C903254Schedule A

Tower One HoldingCorporation

Manulife 15,000,000

16/09/2008

04104-0429,0430, 0431,0432, 0433,

0434

0C903343Sakto, Tower 1 & 2,Preston &Adelaide

Manulife 29,958,820

DATE PIN # INSTRUMENT #CHARGER

(BORROWER)CHARGEE(LENDER)

AMOUNT$ CND

16/09/2008 04104-0431 0C903247Adelaide OttawaCorporation

Manulife 15,000,000

16/09/2008 04104-04330C903294& 0C903294Schedule A

Tower Two HoldingTCorporation

Manulife 45,000,000

- 10 -

SCHEDULE "C"

The Royal Bank Mortgages/Loans

DATE PIN # INSTRUMENT #C I I A RG ER

(BORROWER)CILARGEE(LENDER)

AMOUNT$ CND

13/01/1989 04 I 04-0298 N474269Sakto

DevelopmentCorporation

Royal ana Bank of

C da20,000,000

14/04/1994 N879647Salto

DevelopmentCorporation

Royal Bank of5

Canada000 000

SCHEDULE "D"

The TD Bank, Canada Trusteo Mortgage Co,' and Guaranty Truste Mortgages/Loans

DATE PIN # I NST RUNI ENT #CHARGER

(130 R ROW ER)C 11 A RG EE(LENDER)

AM °UNT$ CND

27/05/1986 N382312S akto

DevelopmentCorporation

TorontoDominionBank

8,174,588

19/07/1985Mort ga geLT417573

S akto DCV. Corp.Pte.

Guaranty Trust 900,000

08/10/1987AgreementLT579939

S akt()DevelopmentCorp. Pte. Ltd.

Guaranty TrustCo. of Canada

900 000

20/10/1987MortgageN412775

Titus Clou,in Trust

CanadaTiuste°

Mortgagc Co.

DocumentGeneralN412995

Tityls Chou,in Trust

CanadaTrustco

Mortgagc Co

01/02/1988DocumentGeneral:LT546065

S aktoDevelopmentCorp. Pte. Ltd.

Guaranty TrustCo. of Canada

868 339,(am ending

priorcharge)

' Canada Truste() Mortgage Company \Vati amalgamated Canada Trast Company and TD Bank's existing subsidiery TDTrust Company under the mime The Canada Trust Company. TD Bank eontinues to operate The Canada Trust Company as asubsidiery.

Guaranty Trust Company ol Canada \vas amalttamated \vith ()Uler companies to form Central Guaranty Trust Company (in

[988). In 1992, it was placed tnt() liquidation, and TD bought the assets.

BRUNO-M

S ER-FONDS and MIJTANG URUD

-and-

Appl

ican

ts

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, TORONTO-DOMINION BANK, MANULIFE

FINANCIAL CORPORATION and DELOITTE & TOUCHE

Respondents

Court Fil

e No. CV-17-578681-00CL

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

(Commercial Lis

t)

ProceedinL, commenced at To

ront

o

ORDER

BENNETT JONES LLP

3400 One Fir

st Canadian Pla

ce

P.O. Box 130

Toronto ON I

VI5X

1A4

Lin

coln

Caylor (#37030L)

Email: cavlorl@bennety ones. coi

n

Maureen Ni.

Ward (#44065Q)

Email: wa

rchn

Ovnnettj ones. cor

n

Telephone:

(416) 863-1200

Fac

simi

le:

(416) 863-1716

Lawyers for the app

lica

nts

BRUNO-IVIANSER-FONDS and MUTANG URUD

-and

-

Plaintiffs

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, TORONTO-DOMLNION BANK, MANULIFE

FINANCIAL CORPORATION and DELOITTE & TOUCHE

Def

enda

nts

Court Fil

e No. CV-1

7-57

8681

.00a

,,

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

(Commercial Lis

t)

Proceeding commenced at To

ront

o

FACTUM OF THE APPLICANTS

(Ap

plic

atio

n fo

r with-

notice Norwich Phurmacal

order ret

urna

ble February 5 - 6, 2018)

!BENNETT JONES LLP

3400 One Fir

st Canadian Pla

ce

P.O. Box 130

Toronto ON M5X I A4

Lincoln Ca.

,,Jor (#37030L)

Email:

cayl

orl cOennettiones.com

Maureen M. Ward (#44065Q)

Email: wardm@bennetIjones.com

Tel

epho

ne:

(416) 863-1200

Fac

simi

le:

(416) 863-1716

Lawyers for

the App

lica

nts