Brendan D. Peters

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Norwich order against two cryptocurrency exchanges to trace assets allegedly misappropriated by the defendants in relation to a meme coin project.

The plaintiffs sought to identify the owners of wallets to which the unaccounted crypto assets were sent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had already identified the alleged wrongdoers, commenced an action, and could obtain the information through the normal discovery process or a motion for third-party production.

The court concluded that a Norwich order was not necessary and the interests of justice did not favour granting it.

The applicant sought leave to commence a derivative action on behalf of the company against the respondent, who allegedly took corporate funds for personal use without authorization.

The parties were the sole directors and equal voting shareholders, resulting in corporate gridlock.

The court found the applicant met the requirements under section 239 of the Canadian Business Corporations Act, including providing proper notice, acting in good faith, and showing the action was in the company's interest.

Leave was granted, and the company was ordered to pay the applicant's reasonable legal fees, with the ultimate amount to be determined at trial.

The applicant, a co-founder and major shareholder of a blockchain technology start-up, applied for declarations that he remains a shareholder and director after the company purported to repurchase his shares for nominal consideration under a default provision.

The respondent CEO alleged that the applicant had committed various defaults, including disparaging the company and withholding access to corporate funds.

The court found that the respondent failed to prove any of the alleged defaults, noting that much of the evidence was inadmissible double-hearsay and that the notice of default was untimely.

Additionally, the court held that the purported repurchase was void because the company failed to pay the purchase price within the strict timelines required by the agreement.

Consequently, the court granted the application.