2 total
The court granted leave to amend a claim for an oppression remedy but excised contractually barred employment allegations.
The plaintiff sought leave to amend her statement of claim to include particulars of an oppression remedy related to her shareholding, following a partial settlement of prior employment-related claims.
The defendants opposed the inclusion of paragraphs that referred to the previously settled employment issues, arguing they were contractually barred.
The court granted leave to amend the statement of claim for the oppression remedy but ordered the excision of paragraphs relating to the settled employment claims, finding them to be surplusage and contractually barred.
Costs were awarded against the plaintiff.
Administrative dismissal set aside after inadvertent delay and lack of prejudice.
The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside a registrar’s administrative dismissal of the action for delay under Rule 48.14.
The court applied the factors governing such relief, including the explanation for delay, whether the missed deadline was inadvertent, the timeliness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendant.
Although there were periods of unexplained delay after mediation, the court found the missed set‑down deadline resulted from inadvertence and the motion to set aside was brought promptly after discovery of the dismissal.
The remaining issue concerned valuation of the plaintiff’s shares in the corporate defendant, which would largely depend on financial records and expert evidence.
Finding no evidence of actual prejudice and that the plaintiff satisfied the applicable factors, the court set aside the dismissal order as against the corporate defendant only.
