3 total
The court struck a self-represented plaintiff's deficient statement of claim regarding a 2008 corporate acquisition but granted leave to amend non-time-barred allegations.
The plaintiff, self-represented, brought a claim against the defendants concerning the 2008 acquisition of Aurelian Resources Inc. by Kinross Gold Corporation, alleging conspiracy, share price manipulation, wrongful acquisition of shares, and concealment.
The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, being scandalous/frivolous/vexatious/abuse of process, and being time-barred.
The court struck the claim in its entirety for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action due to lack of material facts and proper pleading of elements.
Claims arising directly from the 2008 acquisition were also struck as time-barred.
However, the court granted leave to amend the non-time-barred portions of the claim, acknowledging the plaintiff's self-represented status and misunderstanding of pleading rules.
The court dismissed the individual defendants' motions to strike the oppression claims against them, finding the pleadings sufficiently implicated them in the alleged oppressive conduct.
The individual defendants, comprising management and major label directors of Re:Sound, brought motions under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike oppression claims asserted against them personally by ACTRA Performers’ Rights Society (ACTRA PRS).
ACTRA PRS alleged that the individual defendants, through their actions and inactions, caused Re:Sound to unfairly compete with ACTRA PRS, fail to adopt proper fee policies, neglect technological enhancements for equitable royalty distribution, and inadequately enforce tariffs, all for personal gain or to benefit their nominating organizations.
The court dismissed the motions, finding that the oppression claims were sufficiently pleaded, not plain and obvious to fail, and did not constitute an abuse of process.
The court applied the two-prong test for personal liability in oppression claims, concluding that the defendants were sufficiently implicated in the alleged oppressive conduct and that personal liability could be a fit remedy.
The Court of Appeal affirmed that an 'arguable case' standard applies when determining if an arbitration agreement exists for the purpose of staying court proceedings.
This appeal addressed the standard of proof for establishing the existence of an arbitration agreement when seeking a stay of court proceedings under the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017.
The appellant argued for a balance of probabilities standard, while the motion judge applied an "arguable case" standard.
The Court of Appeal affirmed that, consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., the "arguable case" standard applies to the technical prerequisites for a mandatory stay, including the existence of an arbitration agreement.
The Court found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that an arbitration agreement was arguably in existence based on the evidence.
The appeal was dismissed, and the stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration was upheld.
