Christopher A.L. Caruana

The plaintiffs, a pharmacist and his holding company, brought a motion for leave to commence a derivative action on behalf of a pharmacy corporation against the defendants, another pharmacist and his wife's holding company.

The plaintiffs also sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against two commercial condominium units, a restraining order, and leave to amend their Statement of Claim.

The court dismissed the motion for a derivative action, finding it was essentially a shareholder dispute and not in the best interests of the corporation.

The requests for a CPL and a restraining order were also dismissed as the plaintiffs failed to establish a triable issue regarding an interest in the land or a strong prima facie case.

Leave to amend the Statement of Claim was partially granted.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction against former employees who started a competing business, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and improper solicitation of customers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the plaintiff failed to provide clear and non-speculative evidence of irreparable harm.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the defendants, as an injunction could financially ruin their new business, whereas the plaintiff showed no evidence of actual damage.

The plaintiff commenced a foreclosure action regarding a Multiple Unit Residential Building (MURB) investment scheme.

The investors, who had signed powers of attorney in favour of the developer, alleged financial manipulation and breach of fiduciary duty.

Given the complex financial history, the lack of proper accounting by the mortgagee, and the overlapping shareholder oppression claims, the case management judge directed a reference to determine the mortgage accounting and related issues.

The judge also ordered a stay of the foreclosure action and oppression applications pending the reference.

The plaintiff sued multiple corporate and individual defendants for fraudulent conveyance, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, and intentional interference with economic relations, alleging they stripped assets from a judgment debtor to avoid payment.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim under Rule 21 for failing to plead material facts.

The court granted the motions in part, striking the tort claims with leave to amend because the plaintiff failed to plead the specific material facts required for each cause of action against each individual defendant.

The court also struck claims for contempt and sequestration without leave to amend, holding that such relief must be sought by motion under the Rules of Civil Procedure, not as free-standing claims in an action.