C. Shammas

The defendants brought a motion seeking an interim or final order to authorize the transfer of shares held by the Jack Witiluk Family Trust in Phase 2 Ventures Inc. to Jeffrey Witiluk and Ryan Witiluk.

The plaintiffs opposed, citing prejudice, oppression, and technical issues related to board approval and director appointment.

The court found the plaintiffs' opposition lacked merit, emphasizing the long-standing nature of the litigation and the pragmatic business sense of the proposed transfer.

Exercising its discretion under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the court authorized the share transfer, dismissing the plaintiffs' technical objections.

Costs were awarded against the plaintiff, Gerald Witiluk, personally.

The defendants brought Rule 21 motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' action.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the defendants' motions until after their motion for leave to amend the statement of claim could be heard.

On consent, the court adjourned the defendants' motions to a later date.

The defendants brought separate motions to strike the plaintiffs' claim under Rule 21.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of one defendant's motion because they had a pending motion for leave to amend the statement of claim.

The court granted the adjournment, finding no prejudice to the defendants and noting that proceeding with a motion to strike while a motion to amend is pending would be inefficient.

Both motions to strike were adjourned to be heard together, with costs thrown away awarded to one defendant.

The defendants brought separate motions to strike the plaintiffs' action under Rule 21.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the motions because they had a pending motion for leave to amend the statement of claim.

The court granted the adjournment, finding that it would be inefficient to proceed with the motions to strike before the motion to amend was decided.

Both motions were adjourned to be heard together, with costs thrown away awarded to one of the defendants.

The moving parties (the Innes Parties) brought a motion for summary judgment in two related actions arising from a share purchase agreement for a quarry business.

The responding parties (the Guido Parties) defaulted on payments under a promissory note and failed to assume mortgages as agreed, but argued they were induced into the agreement by misrepresentations regarding the quarry licence, the standing of the mortgages, and the condition of equipment.

The court found no genuine issues for trial, concluding that no misrepresentations were made and that the entire agreement clause precluded the pre-contractual representations alleged.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the Innes Parties for $1,477,200, plus a declaration for indemnity regarding the mortgages.

The plaintiffs, Gerald Witiluk and the trustees of the Gerald Witiluk Family Trust, brought a motion seeking an order that the defendants, Jack Witiluk and others, were in contempt of three previous court orders regarding document production in an ongoing oppression remedy case.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there were delays in production, the plaintiffs failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants' conduct was intentionally contemptuous.

The court exercised its discretion, considering the complex, long-standing nature of the family business litigation, the moving target of the share valuation date, and the defendants' good faith efforts to comply.

The court also criticized the plaintiffs' use of aggressive language in their motion, including a request for imprisonment, which was deemed unhelpful to the process.