Barry M. Weintraub

The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of portions of an oppression remedy claim on the basis that certain alleged acts were statute‑barred.

The claim arose from a long‑running business dispute in which the plaintiff alleged that the individual defendant conducted the affairs of several corporations in a manner oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to the plaintiff’s interests.

The court held that the alleged acts formed part of a complex factual matrix concerning the parties’ ongoing business relationship and that determining when the limitation period began to run required detailed factual findings.

Because a full appreciation of the evidence could not be achieved on the motion record, summary judgment was inappropriate.

The motion was dismissed and the issues were left for determination at trial.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to stay the action on the ground that India was the more appropriate forum.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion, noting she correctly articulated and applied the governing legal principles.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his defamation action by a Master.

The Master had dismissed the action due to the appellant's failure to execute unlimited medical authorizations, relying on the appellant's overall conduct in the action.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that interlocutory dismissal is a remedy of last resort and the appellant's conduct was not contumelious.

Furthermore, the Master erred by relying on grounds not specified in the responding party's notice of motion, contrary to Rule 37.06.