Anne Sheppard

Two equal shareholder brothers in a family construction group became deadlocked after one withdrew from active management due to illness and sought to realize the value of his shares.

The court found a fundamental and irreparable deadlock in the management of the corporations under the oppression and winding‑up provisions of corporate statutes.

Competing valuation reports were rejected in part, with the court determining fair value by adjusting one report and rejecting assumptions that the operating company lacked viability.

The court ordered a forced buy‑out requiring the remaining shareholder to purchase the other’s shares at a court‑determined fair value.

Payment terms were structured to balance the retiring shareholder’s need for compensation with the company’s operational viability.

Supplementary reasons in a family law matter addressing transportation obligations for access exchanges and clarification of an interim access schedule pending the potential implementation of a shared parenting regime.

The court agreed with the respondent’s interpretation of the earlier reasons and declined to convert the respondent’s willingness to assist with transportation into a binding obligation.

The court confirmed the interim access arrangements and encouraged the parties to develop a shared parenting schedule during the final month of the six‑month interim period.

If the parties are unable to reach agreement, the court indicated that a case conference could be scheduled.

The applicant mother and respondent father both brought motions for interim custody and access of their three children.

The mother also sought child and spousal support, and to add the children's school board as a party.

The court awarded sole interim custody to the father due to the mother's recent violent conduct, anger issues, and alcohol abuse.

The mother was granted specified access subject to a strict condition prohibiting alcohol consumption.

The mother was awarded $800 per month in interim spousal support, but denied child support.

The motion to add the school board as a party was dismissed, as the board acted appropriately in maintaining the status quo for the children's transportation amidst the parents' access dispute.

The appellant, a parent and former school volunteer, appealed an order striking his statement of claim against the school board and various officials.

The claim alleged negligence, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and misfeasance in public office arising from a ban restricting his access to school property.

The Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the negligence claims, finding no duty of care was owed.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the appellant had sufficiently pleaded the elements of misfeasance in public office against the school principals, superintendents, and the board, by alleging the ban was continued for the improper purpose of deliberately harming him.

The appellant Crown appealed a declaration that the respondent, Regulvar Ontario, was not a 'person resident in a designated jurisdiction' under the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act.

The Act restricts construction access for corporations controlled directly or indirectly by residents of Quebec.

Regulvar Quebec owned 30% of Regulvar Ontario's shares, with the rest held by individuals who were directors or officers of Regulvar Quebec.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's use of the de jure control test, finding that Regulvar Quebec did not have the ability to elect the majority of the board of directors.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a decision declaring that Regulvar Ontario was not a 'person resident in a designated jurisdiction' under the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act (Construction Labour Mobility), 1999.

The Act restricted access to construction jobs in Ontario for persons resident in Quebec.

Regulvar Ontario's head office was in Ontario, but 30% of its shares were held by Regulvar Quebec.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's use of the de jure control test from Duha Printers, finding that Regulvar Quebec did not control Regulvar Ontario directly or indirectly.

The appeal was dismissed.