2 total
The court stayed five actions brought by a lawyer against former clients victimized by his defalcating partner, finding the litigation oppressive and an abuse of process.
The court considered whether to stay five "protective actions" brought by a law partner against former clients and third parties following the misappropriation of trust funds by a defalcating lawyer.
The plaintiff sought to recover misappropriated funds on behalf of the firm's client beneficiaries.
The court found that continuing the litigation would be oppressive, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as the defendants—many of whom were themselves victims—had been subjected to prolonged litigation without clarity on amounts owed or owing.
The court stayed all five protective actions, finding that the victims should not bear the burden of their former counsel's wrongdoings through litigation.
Unilateral ouster from jointly planned optometry clinic constituted oppression; applicant ordered to repay capital contributions.
The applicants and respondents entered into a business arrangement to open an optometry clinic, but failed to agree on final terms.
The applicant locked the respondent out of the business and ceased paying rent.
The court found the applicant's unilateral ouster of the respondent constituted oppression.
The applicant was ordered to repay the respondent's surplus capital contribution and the parties were directed to appoint an appraiser to determine fair market rent owed since the lockout.
