4 total
Statement of claim struck without leave to amend as plaintiff lacked capacity and disclosed no cause of action.
The defendants brought motions to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim, which sought over $2.2 million in damages related to real estate properties the plaintiff did not own.
The plaintiff, who had recently been declared a vexatious litigant in a separate proceeding, sought an adjournment, which was denied.
The court struck the statement of claim without leave to amend, finding it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, the plaintiff lacked capacity to sue regarding properties he did not own, and the action was an abuse of process.
Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial and substantial indemnity basis.
Summary judgment Accused acquitted
The plaintiffs sued the defendants for breach of a royalty agreement and promissory note following the winding-up of an investment fund.
The court found the defendants breached the royalty agreement by discontinuing payments after the fund's termination, as the agreement provided for a "proportionate continuation" of royalties if a significant amount of unitholders reinvested in successor funds.
However, the court rejected claims of bad faith and the necessity of an Independent Review Committee (IRC) referral for the winding-up decision.
Damages were awarded based on a modified calculation of the proportionate continuation of royalties, significantly less than sought by the plaintiffs.
Costs of $4,500 awarded to applicant against personal respondents for motion regarding corporate funding of appeal.
Following a motion for directions where the court ordered that the corporate respondent not pay the personal respondents' legal fees for their appeal of a winding-up order, the court determined costs.
The applicant sought costs of $4,500 on a partial indemnity basis.
The respondents failed to provide written submissions.
The court awarded the requested $4,500 to the applicant, ordering that it be paid jointly and severally by the personal respondents, as their conduct in breaching a stay order necessitated the motion.
Corporate funds cannot be used to finance an appeal of a winding-up order that solely benefits oppressive shareholders.
The court-appointed monitor sought directions on whether Di Battista Gambin Developments Limited (DBG) should pay the legal fees incurred by the Di Battista respondents for their appeal of a winding-up order.
The court found that the appeal was solely for the benefit of the individual Di Battista respondents, whose conduct had been found oppressive, and not for the mutual benefit or ordinary course of DBG's business.
Therefore, DBG should not fund the appeal costs, and the Di Battista respondents were ordered to repay any legal fees already paid by DBG.
