Search by
Facts of the case
Sprott Asset Management LP is an asset management firm that wanted to gain control of Central Fund of Canada Ltd. (CFC), an investment fund controlled by the Spicer family. To help execute this plan, Sprott retained Kingsdale Partners LP, a strategic shareholder advisory firm, to provide strategic advice and proxy solicitation services in connection with Sprott’s efforts to take control of CFC’s management. The parties’ relationship was governed by a written agreement that was drafted in early 2015 and formally executed on June 15, 2015. Although not signed earlier, the parties had been meeting from February to June 2015 to discuss strategy options for gaining control of CFC. The agreement set out a menu of advisory and solicitation tasks and provided for both a fixed management fee and a contingent success fee.
The Kingsdale advisory agreement and key clauses
The agreement between Sprott and Kingsdale was framed as a strategic advisory proposal “for” Sprott in relation to a proposed action “to gain control of the management of CFC.” A central clause defined “Success” as “SPROTT becoming the Manager of CFC.” The trial court and the Court of Appeal treated this definition as the cornerstone of the bargain, indicating that the contract was focused on the overall objective of Sprott becoming manager of CFC, rather than on any particular tactic or single transaction structure. The “Statement of Strategic Advisory Work” and related provisions described Kingsdale’s role in broad terms, emphasizing advisory, strategic communications and proxy work directed at gaining control of CFC’s management. The drafting did not say that the retainer was limited to one discrete takeover tactic, nor did it expressly terminate the relationship if the first tactic failed.
The fee provisions had two main components. First, a “Strategic Advisory & Proxy Solicitation Management Fee” of $75,000 was payable in two tranches: $50,000 “upon the mailing of SPROTT’s circular or upon settlement, whichever is earlier,” and a further $25,000 “ten (10) days before the meeting or upon a settlement, whichever is earlier.” Second, a success fee was payable if “Success” occurred, that is, if Sprott became the manager of CFC. The precise dollar amount or formula for this success fee is not disclosed in the appellate reasons. The agreement also contained clauses on the contract’s duration and termination. One clause provided that the agreement would “continue in force and effect until the services agreed upon in the agreement are completed,” signalling that the retainer would continue while Sprott was still pursuing control of CFC and Kingsdale’s work remained relevant. Another clause allowed termination by written mutual consent, and the agreement also contemplated termination for breach by Kingsdale.
Hostile bid, failed requisition and continuing campaign
Once the agreement was executed in June 2015, Sprott and Kingsdale implemented what the courts described as a “hostile” meeting requisition strategy as part of Sprott’s first takeover bid. This tactic involved requisitioning a shareholders’ meeting at CFC at which Sprott hoped to secure sufficient support to oust the Spicer family’s control. Kingsdale’s services were closely connected with this tactic, including proxy solicitation, communications with shareholders and strategic advice about how best to win the vote. However, in November 2015, the Alberta Court of Appeal held in 1891868 Alberta Ltd. v. Central Fund of Canada Limited, 2015 ABCA 331, that the meeting requisition was invalid. This effectively derailed the meeting-based approach: there was no valid shareholder meeting and no proper mailing of a Sprott circular under that requisition.
The failure of the meeting requisition did not end Sprott’s interest in acquiring CFC. Throughout 2016, there were repeated communications between Sprott and Kingsdale concerning “next steps” in the broader acquisition campaign. Evidence accepted at trial showed that when a Kingsdale representative asked if the campaign was “dead,” a Sprott representative replied that it was still considering its options. There was no clear statement that the engagement was over, and no written termination under the amendments and waivers clause. The courts treated these ongoing discussions and the absence of any explicit termination as important surrounding circumstances. They fitted with the idea that the contract addressed an overall goal rather than just the first failed tactic.
The 2017 consensual acquisition and fee dispute
In March 2017, Sprott initiated a new plan to acquire CFC through a different “hostile” mechanism: a plan of arrangement. This second strategy was commenced without Kingsdale’s involvement, even though Kingsdale was positioned under the agreement to assist with such work based on the advisory tasks it had been retained to perform. Initially, this plan of arrangement was also an adversarial approach. However, while that second hostile plan of arrangement was underway, Sprott shifted course. In July 2017 it approached CFC and the Spicer family with a conciliatory proposal, apologizing for its earlier hostile takeover strategies and offering a modified plan of arrangement. Under the revised proposal, Sprott would acquire CFC’s assets via a newly created vehicle known as New Sprott Trust. CFC and Sprott ultimately reached agreement on this consensual transaction, and the deal closed. Through that arrangement, Sprott achieved what it had set out to do: it gained control of the management of the CFC assets.
After the transaction closed, a dispute emerged over whether Kingsdale was entitled to be paid under the original 2015 contract. Kingsdale claimed the success fee as well as the unpaid portion of the $75,000 management fee. It argued that the agreement was “strategy-agnostic” and goal-oriented: Sprott had retained it to help achieve the overall goal of becoming manager of CFC, not just to run one attempt based on a meeting requisition. Kingsdale maintained that its work on the 2015 hostile campaign materially contributed to the eventual 2017 consensual transaction and that, because the contract had never been validly terminated, its entitlements under both the success fee clause and the management fee clause were triggered once Sprott became manager of CFC.
Sprott resisted. It argued that Kingsdale’s entitlement to the success fee and management fee was limited to services associated with the first hostile bid, particularly the meeting requisition strategy. On that reading, the invalidation of the requisition and the abandonment of that tactic meant that the contractual triggers (such as the mailing of a circular, a meeting, or a settlement in that context) never occurred. Sprott further argued that the later 2017 consensual plan of arrangement was not causally connected to Kingsdale’s work and was outside the scope of the original retainer, both in terms of the success fee and the management fee.
The trial decision
The dispute was tried before Justice Jennifer Penman of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The trial judge began by correctly identifying and applying modern principles of contractual interpretation, emphasizing that the agreement had to be read as a whole and in light of its surrounding circumstances. She accepted that the key question was whether the agreement was focused on the overall goal of Sprott gaining control of the management of CFC, or whether it was confined to the initial meeting requisition strategy used in the first takeover bid.
Justice Penman concluded that the agreement was “goal focused.” In her view, Kingsdale was retained “to provide its services in pursuing ‘an overall goal’ of gaining control of the management of CFC,” and the contract “was not restricted to … a single strategy being utilized to achieve that goal.” The language defining “Success” as Sprott “becoming the Manager of CFC,” together with the “Statement of Strategic Advisory Work” that referred broadly to gaining control of CFC’s management, supported that interpretation. She also noted that if Sprott had intended to limit the retainer to the first hostile strategy, it could easily have inserted precise language to that effect, but did not.
The trial judge relied heavily on the surrounding circumstances. The agreement was drafted before any particular strategy for the first takeover bid had been chosen, yet its language was not revised once Sprott decided to use the meeting requisition approach. Communications between the parties before the agreement showed that they both anticipated the acquisition of CFC would be “complicated” and that Sprott might have to “pivot” between approaches. The contract had essentially the same structure as other agreements between the same parties regarding campaigns to acquire other Spicer-managed entities where there was no meeting requisition at all, reinforcing the conclusion that the retainer was not limited to one strategy.
On termination, Justice Penman found that the agreement had not been terminated before the 2017 acquisition. She pointed to ongoing communications about “next steps” into 2016 and to the absence of any written mutual termination or notice by Sprott that the engagement was at an end. She held that Kingsdale’s services were not “completed” simply because the first tactic failed, and that nothing in the agreement allowed Sprott to unilaterally cut Kingsdale out without communicating that decision.
The trial judge also found a causal connection between Kingsdale’s 2015 work and the 2017 consensual transaction. She accepted that although Kingsdale’s direct involvement ended after the first hostile campaign, its strategic work laid important groundwork and contributed to the pressure that ultimately led to the consensual deal. Because of this link, the fact that the final deal structure differed from the first hostile strategy did not remove it from the scope of the contract. She held that Sprott’s acquisition of CFC in 2017 gave it control over CFC’s management, thereby triggering the success fee. She also found that the conditions for paying the full $75,000 management fee had been met, treating the later consensual deal as a “settlement” within the meaning of the management fee provision, which specified that the management fee was payable “upon settlement” if that event occurred before any meeting or circular.
On the basis of this reasoning, Justice Penman ordered Sprott to pay Kingsdale both the success fee and the unpaid $75,000 management fee. She also awarded substantial costs to Kingsdale, later quantified at $475,000, contingent on the outcome of any appeal.
The appeal and Court of Appeal’s reasoning
Sprott appealed the merits decision and the costs award to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. It argued that the trial judge had made extricable errors of law and palpable and overriding errors of mixed fact and law. First, it claimed that she had failed to interpret the contract as a whole, instead focusing on narrow phrases while overlooking singular wording such as “the meeting” and “the campaign,” and the specific task descriptions that, in Sprott’s view, tied the agreement to the first hostile strategy. Second, Sprott objected to the trial judge’s consideration of an earlier draft of the agreement, asserting that interpretive context must be assessed only as of the time of final contract formation. Third, it argued that the judge’s goal-focused interpretation produced a commercially unreasonable result, effectively turning the agreement into a contract of indefinite duration and forcing Sprott to pay a 20 per cent success fee (on amounts not known when the contract was signed) for a consensual transaction that, it said, was not caused by Kingsdale’s services. Fourth, Sprott argued that the judge had improperly implied a notice-of-termination requirement into the agreement by criticizing Sprott for not informing Kingsdale when it decided to proceed with the plan of arrangement without them. Finally, Sprott alleged that the judge had misconstrued the management fee clause and misapprehended its submissions, including by characterizing its position as a “single strategy” argument instead of a “first takeover bid” argument.
The Court of Appeal rejected these submissions and upheld the trial judgment. On the allegation that the trial judge failed to read the contract as a whole, the appellate court noted that she expressly set out the proper legal test, stated she would start with the text, and addressed Sprott’s specific textual arguments. It accepted her reasoning that although some terms were singular, other language was broad and compatible with multiple strategies, and that the contract’s overall structure and purpose supported the view that it was “strategy-agnostic.” The appellate court acknowledged that she had misquoted one passage by placing the words “For Action Against – Central Fund of Canada Ltd.” under the wrong heading and omitting the words “the proposed action,” but held that this was, at most, a non-overriding error. She had clearly read the full text, and the omitted phrase was ambiguous and did not compel the narrow, tactic-specific reading Sprott proposed.
On the use of the prior draft, the Court of Appeal confirmed that modern contract law allows a court to consider knowledge “within the knowledge of both parties at or before the date of contracting.” Because both sides knew that the draft with materially identical wording pre-dated the selection of the first hostile strategy, it was legitimate to infer that the agreement was not anchored to that specific tactic. The court also endorsed the trial judge’s reliance on similar agreements used in other Sprott campaigns and on the parties’ shared expectation that Sprott might have to “pivot” strategies, all of which showed that the contract contemplated multiple possible routes to the same goal.
On commercial reasonableness, the Court of Appeal held that the goal-focused interpretation did not create an impermissibly perpetual obligation. Termination mechanisms existed: Sprott could terminate by mutual written agreement, rely on termination for breach by Kingsdale, or simply abandon its pursuit of control of CFC, which would render the retainer functionally moot. The court found it commercially sensible that Kingsdale would want protection against being cut out after contributing valuable work that ultimately led to a successful acquisition via another route. The court also rejected the suggestion that it was commercially unreasonable to owe a percentage-based success fee on a transaction whose value was not known at the outset, noting that such structures are common in advisory and investment banking engagements.
The Court of Appeal further agreed with the trial judge that there was a causal connection between Kingsdale’s services and the eventual 2017 consensual transaction, and that the difference between acquiring control via a contested meeting requisition and via a consensual purchase was immaterial in light of the contract’s wording. It upheld the conclusion that the consensual transaction qualified as a “settlement” for the purposes of the management fee provision, thereby triggering payment of the whole $75,000. On the alleged implied notice term, the court clarified that the trial judge had not read a new condition into the contract but had instead made a factual finding that Sprott never communicated any termination, which supported her conclusion that the continuation clause remained engaged because Kingsdale’s contracted-for services were not “completed.” Lastly, the Court of Appeal was not persuaded that the trial judge had misapprehended Sprott’s position in any way that affected the result. Even if Sprott’s argument was better framed as “first takeover bid” rather than “single strategy,” the judge’s ultimate conclusion—that the contractual language and context favoured a goal-oriented interpretation—was equally fatal to both versions of Sprott’s case.
Outcome and monetary consequences
The Court of Appeal dismissed Sprott’s appeal and left the trial judgment fully intact. Kingsdale remains entitled to the success fee under the advisory contract once Sprott became manager of CFC, as well as to the outstanding $75,000 management fee. The trial-level costs award of $475,000 in Kingsdale’s favour stands, and the Court of Appeal ordered Sprott to pay an additional $47,000 in partial indemnity costs for the appeal. This makes Kingsdale the successful party overall, with a confirmed recovery that includes the full $75,000 management fee plus at least $522,000 in costs (trial and appeal combined). Because the written reasons do not disclose the specific dollar value of the success fee itself, the exact total monetary amount ordered in Kingsdale’s favour across both decisions cannot be definitively determined from the reported judgments, although it is clear that the total exceeds $597,000 once the unquantified success fee is included.
Download documents
Appellant
Respondent
Court
Court of Appeal for OntarioCase Number
COA-25-CV-0696Practice Area
Corporate & commercial lawAmount
$ 597,000Winner
RespondentTrial Start Date