Alastair J. McNish

Following their separation, the parties disputed the ownership and value of their jointly built business, Holdco.

The applicant claimed he owned 70% of the common shares, while the respondent claimed a 50% ownership based on their post-separation conduct and equal dividend payments.

The court found the respondent owned 50% of the shares, noting that the corporate records were inaccurate and the applicant had treated the respondent as an equal owner.

The court also held that the claim was not statute-barred and valued the business at $10,800,000, ordering the applicant to pay the respondent $5,400,000 for her shares.

The applicant minor hockey association sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent governing body from re-allocating minor hockey programming contrary to a 2018 agreement.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding whether reasonable notice of termination was required, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm.

The court found that any financial losses were quantifiable and compensable in damages, and the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's action regarding the allocation of shareholdings in a holding company.

The parties, former spouses, disputed whether the respondent owned 30% or 50% of the shares, with the respondent claiming a constructive trust over 20% of the shares due to family law and unjust enrichment principles.

The court found that the corporate records were deficient and that the intertwined family law complexities, including the respondent's decision not to seek an equalization payment, created critical factual disputes.

The court concluded there was a genuine issue for trial and denied summary judgment.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for payment of a real estate commission, the moving party sought costs.

The trustee opposed personal liability, arguing costs should be paid from funds held in court.

The investors argued the trustee should pay costs personally due to improper conduct.

The court ordered costs of $10,000 to be paid from the funds in court, as the moving party should not be prejudiced by the dispute between the trustee and investors, but without prejudice to the investors seeking recovery from the trustee in their ongoing litigation.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the self-represented plaintiffs' claims against three individual defendants for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and to strike the entire claim as frivolous and an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs claimed over $3.8 million in damages arising from a 70-day delay in refinancing their mortgage, alleging the defendants fraudulently registered a charge on their property after a bankruptcy proposal.

The court dismissed the majority of the motion, finding that the pleadings sufficiently alleged personal liability for fraud and negligence against the individual defendants.

However, the court struck redundant claims under the Business Practises Act and cautioned the plaintiffs about the high threshold for proving fraud and the risk of costs.

The plaintiff surety brought a motion for summary judgment against an individual defendant based on an indemnity agreement guaranteeing reimbursement for payments made under lien bonds issued for several corporate defendants.

The defendant denied signing the agreement and alternatively asserted the defence of non est factum, alleging she had not understood the nature of the document.

The court found on the evidence, including the testimony of a subscribing witness and the defendant’s cross‑examination, that the defendant had signed the agreement.

The court held the defence of non est factum was unavailable because there was no evidence of misrepresentation and the defendant had been careless in signing documents without inquiry.

Summary judgment was granted for the amount paid under the bonds, while the claim for additional fees and expenses was not granted due to lack of evidentiary support.

The appellants appealed a Registrar's order requiring a family farming corporation to disclose documents and its directors to submit to examinations under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The trustee sought the information to value the bankrupt's shares in the corporation.

The appellants argued the trustee's access should be limited to shareholder rights under the OBCA.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the trustee is entitled to information relevant to valuing the shares and that there is no conflict between the BIA and directors' duties under the OBCA.

The court granted the trustee's cross-appeal, holding the Registrar lacked authority to order written interrogatories in lieu of an oral examination under s. 163 of the BIA, and awarded costs to the trustee.