3 total
Professional misconduct conviction quashed due to unreasonable refusal to allow withdrawal of deemed admissions without reasons.
The applicant, a certified general accountant, sought judicial review of a professional misconduct conviction based entirely on deemed admissions.
The applicant had failed to respond to a request to admit within the 20-day period due to personal stress and seeking new counsel.
The conduct committee dismissed his motion to withdraw the deemed admissions without providing reasons, and he was subsequently convicted without being permitted to call evidence.
The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the conduct committee's decision was unreasonable and that the failure to provide reasons for a decision of such significance constituted a breach of natural justice.
Inspection of biofuel plant denied; operational status not necessary for determining pleaded issues.
The plaintiffs moved under Rule 32.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an order permitting inspection of a biofuel production plant owned by a defendant corporation.
The plaintiffs argued the inspection would allow their experts to assess whether the plant was operational in connection with a forthcoming Mareva injunction motion and claims relating to allegedly fraudulent transactions designed to defeat enforcement of anticipated U.S. judgments.
The court held that inspection orders require necessity for the proper determination of an issue in dispute and must reveal something useful or probative for the trier of fact.
Because the operational status of the plant was not relevant to the plaintiffs’ pleaded claim that certain funds were used to acquire the plant, the inspection was not necessary and that part of the motion was dismissed.
However, the court ordered production of written documents referred to in an affidavit pursuant to Rule 30.04(2).
Shareholder loans excluded from “permanent capital” under partnership agreement.
A former equity partner withdrew from an accounting partnership and joined a competing firm, triggering a liquidated damages clause requiring payment equal to two times the partner’s “permanent capital.” The dispute concerned whether shareholder loans made through a related corporation formed part of “permanent capital” under the partnership agreement.
The court interpreted the agreement according to its plain language and held that permanent capital was equivalent to the partner’s capital account in the partnership, which had been equalized to $10,000 and did not include shareholder loans.
The plaintiff was therefore liable for $20,000 in liquidated damages but was entitled to repayment of capital, profit share, shareholder loan amounts, and related payments.
Allegations of fiduciary misconduct and various counterclaims by the partnership, including claims for suppressed work‑in‑progress and loss of opportunity damages, were rejected.
