A former rep has been ordered to repay the balance of a $1-million interest-free loan he received upon joining CIBC Wood Gundy, after a court rejected his rationale for refusing to pay under a settlement with the firm.
According to a decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Murray Bockhold received the loan in 2013 when he joined Wood Gundy. When the firm terminated him in 2018, he still owed about $600,000. The firm sued to recover the outstanding amount.
In 2023, the parties agreed to settle for $500,000, payable in two instalments of $250,000. Bockhold made the first payment but failed to make the second. The firm then sued again for the $250,000 balance plus about $42,000 in interest.
“Mr. Bockhold does not dispute that he agreed to the settlement but asserts that the agreement is not enforceable because it was obtained through fraud,” the court said.
Wood Gundy applied for summary judgment, while Bockhold asked the court to order the production of documents he said were “material and necessary” to prove the alleged fraud.
He also filed a counterclaim seeking damages for wrongful dismissal, emotional distress, reputational harm, loss of income and punitive damages.
As part of that counterclaim, he sought document production and injunctive and monetary relief related to what the court described as “concerns he has about certain practices in the banking industry.”
The court adjourned Bockhold’s application, finding no possibility that the documents he sought could affect the firm’s claim to enforce the settlement.
“While the discovery sought by Mr. Bockhold might be material to issues raised in his counterclaim that are unrelated to the settlement agreement — something I express no opinion on — it is not necessary for the purpose of deciding Wood Gundy’s application for summary judgment,” the court said.
On that issue, the court ultimately sided with the firm.
The court ruled it could decide the summary judgment motion without addressing all issues in the counterclaim.
“Mr. Bockhold says that the settlement agreement is not enforceable because it was obtained through fraud,” the court said. He alleged it was based on fraudulent misrepresentations by the firm, and raised claims of perjury, witness tampering and inadequate disclosure in the original litigation.
‘Not relevant’
However, the court found that “the defence of fraudulent misrepresentation raises no genuine issue for trial” and rejected his other arguments.
“Throughout his submissions, Mr. Bockhold conflated his allegations of fraud in the banking industry with the issue of whether fraud exists in relation to the formation of the settlement agreement. These are distinct issues,” the court said. “Even if there is merit to Mr. Bockhold’s allegations … they are not relevant to enforcement of the settlement agreement.”
“While I do not question that Mr. Bockhold has changed his mind about the settlement based on further consideration of the facts, that is not a basis for setting aside a settlement,” the court added.
The court concluded there was no genuine issue for trial and ordered Bockhold to pay $292,000 under the settlement.
It rejected the firm’s request for special costs, finding it had not proven they were warranted.
While the court struck part of Bockhold’s counterclaim, it lifted an order preventing him from serving the claim on 50 additional defendants — including banks, brokerages, securities regulators, media outlets and former prime minister Justin Trudeau.
However, the court urged Bockhold, who was self-represented, to consider obtaining legal advice regarding the counterclaim.