Cheyenne Parsons

The court considered costs following a mixed-success application under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

Although the applicants were awarded monetary relief, they failed on significant claims, including a request for 45% ownership and profits of the respondent corporation.

The court found success was divided and ordered each party to bear their own costs, referencing relevant offers to settle and prior case law on divided success.

The applicants sought relief under the Ontario Business Corporations Act for payment of 45 percent of the value of PowerNorth Utility Contractors Inc., arising from previous business dealings.

The court found that the applicants were proper complainants under the Act and entitled to remedies, including repayment of investments and services provided.

The court calculated the amounts owed for cash investment, use of premises, equipment, and services, and awarded interest.

The total award was $399,441.90.

The court declined to order a share of profits and urged the parties to agree on costs, noting divided success.

The Kahu Defendants moved to dismiss Park Lawn Corporation's action for knowing assistance as an abuse of process under Rule 21.01(3)(d), arguing it was an improper attempt to re-litigate issues from a previously settled action against a former CEO.

The court denied the motion, finding that Park Lawn was not aware of the Kahu Defendants' alleged misconduct at the time of the previous settlement, the facts and causes of action were not identical, and the case law allows for several liability in knowing assistance claims, which was consistent with the terms of the prior release.

The court also clarified that a consent dismissal does not automatically lead to an abuse of process finding unless the issues could have been raised in the prior action.

This case addresses a corporate deadlock within AnalytixInsight Inc. (ALY) between two factions of its board of directors, stemming from serious allegations of misconduct, including insider tipping, self-dealing, and material non-disclosure, against the former CEO and his allies.

The Applicant Faction sought an investigation under the Business Corporations Act (OBCA) and oppression remedy relief.

The court found a prima facie case of oppressive and dishonest conduct by the Respondent Faction, warranting immediate interim intervention.

An inspector was ordered to investigate the allegations, and the alleged wrongdoers were temporarily precluded from board participation, with an interim board appointed to ensure company functionality.