4 total
Appeal of partial summary judgment dismissing oppression damages claims dismissed for lack of causation evidence.
The appellants, minority shareholders of an insolvent corporation, appealed a motion judge's order granting partial summary judgment dismissing their claims for damages for oppression, breach of contract, and tort.
The motion judge found no evidence that the respondents' alleged wrongful conduct caused the appellants' damages.
The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal of the damages claims, confirming that causation and compensable injury are required for an oppression claim under the Business Corporations Act.
The court made a minor amendment to the order to correct an accidental error regarding declaratory relief, but otherwise dismissed the appeal.
Appeal dismissed regarding validity of guarantee judgment, but remitted to determine enforceability following foreclosure.
The appellant guaranteed a mortgage granted by his company.
After default, the respondents obtained judgment against the appellant on the guarantee.
The respondents subsequently postponed their mortgage to other mortgages held by related companies, and a foreclosure judgment was obtained.
The appellant applied to set aside the judgment against him, arguing the postponement materially altered his risk and terminated the guarantee.
The application judge dismissed the application.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the interpretation that the guarantee permitted the postponement without consent.
However, the Court admitted fresh evidence of the foreclosure judgment and remitted the issue of its effect on the enforceability of the judgment against the appellant to the application judge.
Appeal dismissed; vendor entitled to rely on strict compliance with personal delivery notice provision.
The vendor mistakenly accepted an agreement of purchase and sale for one of two adjacent properties without a condition tying the sale to the second property.
The purchaser attempted to waive the conditions for its benefit by faxing notice to the vendor's solicitor, rather than delivering it personally to the vendor as required by the agreement.
The vendor refused to close, relying on the strict notice requirements.
The purchaser sued for specific performance or damages and brought a motion for partial summary judgment, which was dismissed.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the entire agreement clause precluded implied terms regarding notice, and that the vendor had not waived the requirement for personal delivery.
Appeal dismissed; appellants failed to prove loan agreements charged a criminal rate of interest.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment, alleging that the loan agreements charged a criminal rate of interest.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was entitled to conclude that more than $78,000 was advanced, meaning the illegal rate of interest was not proven.
The Court also upheld the trial judge's award of substantial indemnity costs, which were in accordance with the loan agreements.
