Caroline Ellen Annmarie Abela

The plaintiff brought a motion for interim relief under the oppression provisions of the OBCA against his parents and various family corporations.

He sought an interim distribution of proceeds from a US litigation and the continuation of monthly payments he had historically received.

The court declined to order the interim distribution due to the contingent nature of the funds, but ordered the funds protected and settlement information disclosed.

The court also declined to order the continuation of historical monthly payments, finding them to be personal gifts.

However, the court found a strong prima facie case of oppression regarding unequal cash advances made to other shareholders from a family holding company, and ordered interim equalization payments and a halt to non-dividend cash advances.

In a guardianship application under the Substitute Decisions Act concerning the alleged incapacity of an elderly business owner, the applicant sought an order sealing the court file.

Corporate respondents involved in related automotive businesses also sought a confidentiality order allowing them to file documents with the court without disclosing them to certain co‑respondents, or alternatively an “eyes‑only” order limiting disclosure to counsel.

The court held that a sealing order was appropriate under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act given the sensitive medical, personal, and commercial information involved.

However, the requested confidentiality order preventing disclosure to opposing parties was rejected as contrary to fundamental principles of civil procedure and natural justice.

The court instead extended the deemed undertaking rule to protect confidential information while maintaining ordinary disclosure obligations between parties.

The appellant hospital appealed a motion judge's order refusing to approve a 1998 infant settlement and granting the plaintiff's motion to amend the claim for damages.

The plaintiff sought the amendment based on new expert evidence indicating her life expectancy had increased by 30 to 35 years since the settlement was reached.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly focused on the best interests of the child under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and reasonably relied on the uncontradicted expert evidence regarding life expectancy.

A former student of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario sought judicial review of an Appeal Committee decision that overturned a publication ban on his name following a finding of professional misconduct.

The student had misappropriated $20,000 from a client.

The Discipline Committee had ordered a publication ban to aid his rehabilitation, but the Appeal Committee found this was an error in principle, as the conduct involved moral turpitude requiring general deterrence.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, upholding the Appeal Committee's decision to publish the student's name.