C. Skipper

This motion for directions concerned the release of garnished funds held by the City of Thunder Bay.

The Plaintiff/Creditor, Mirmil Products, had a judgment against the Defendant/Debtor, Man-Shield (NWO) Construction Inc. (Manshield).

Manshield challenged the garnishment, arguing the funds were owed to a different entity, MBuilds (NWO) Limited Partnership, or were subject to a statutory trust under the Construction Act.

The court found that the City owed the funds to Manshield, not MBuilds, and that the corporate name change did not alter the entity's identity or obligations.

The court also dismissed the trust argument, finding it irrelevant as all subtrades were paid.

The motion for directions was granted, ordering the garnished funds to be paid to Mirmil Products.

This judgment addresses two motions within a garnishment proceeding.

First, M Builds (NWO) Limited Partnership sought to be added as a co-defendant or joined as a necessary party to the garnishment, which was granted for the purpose of filing materials and making submissions.

Second, 1022403 Ontario Ltd. (Mirmil), a judgment creditor, moved for security for costs against Man-Shield (NWO) Construction Inc. (MS).

The court found Mirmil had a prima facie entitlement to security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(c).

MS failed to demonstrate sufficient assets or a good chance of success on the merits, given its inconsistent positions regarding the ownership of garnished funds and the City of Thunder Bay's evidence.

The court also rejected MS's argument that the funds were subject to a trust under the Construction Act, as section 7 does not apply to municipalities and section 8 was not engaged due to subcontractors being paid.

Consequently, MS was ordered to post security for costs totaling $12,000.

The applicants, minority shareholders, commenced an oppression application against the respondents, the majority shareholders and the corporation.

The parties consented to a trial to determine the value of the applicants' shares, which the respondents would purchase.

The court resolved several methodological disputes between the parties' expert valuators regarding maintainable earnings, capitalization rates, and redundant assets.

Crucially, the court held that no minority discount should be applied to the valuation of the applicants' shares, as the purchase was a compulsory consolidation of the majority's position rather than an open market transaction.

The owner of leased commercial premises moved under the Construction Lien Act to declare three construction liens invalid and to discharge security posted to vacate them, arguing the lien claimants failed to correctly identify the owner in their claims for lien.

The court considered whether the naming errors constituted non‑compliance with s. 34(5) of the Act or merely a failure to strictly comply curable under s. 6.

The evidence showed the tenant owner had used multiple corporate and unregistered names and had not registered certain business names, contributing to confusion about the proper legal entity.

The court held that the errors—misplacing the owner’s name in the electronic form or naming related Equinox entities—were failures to strictly comply but not fatal defects, and no prejudice was established.

Motions to discharge the liens were dismissed and the lien claimants were permitted to amend pleadings to correctly name the tenant owner.