C. Stanek

The applicants, two brothers involved in a family drywall business, sought interlocutory injunctive relief against their brother and the corporation.

They sought to preserve the business assets, the proceeds of sale of various properties allegedly held in trust, and to be reinstated as employees.

The court granted the injunctions preserving the business and the property proceeds, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding beneficial ownership, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured preservation.

However, the court declined to grant a mandatory injunction reinstating the applicants as employees, as they failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case.

The court also permitted the applicants to file a required undertaking as to damages within 7 days.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14 to set a timetable for the remaining steps in an action commenced in 2010.

The defendant opposed the motion and sought dismissal for delay.

The court found that the delay was largely attributable to the plaintiff's former counsel, who failed to advance the action and refused to release the file due to a solicitor's lien.

The court held that the plaintiff had not abandoned the action and should not be penalized for counsel's inaction.

Furthermore, the court found no actual prejudice to the defendant, despite the deteriorating health of its key witness and the destruction of some documents.

The motion was granted, allowing the action to proceed on its merits.

The applicants sought declarations under s. 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act that the moving party beneficially owned 50% of the shares of a corporation formed in connection with a logistics business restructuring and that a shareholder loan of approximately $2.8 million was owed.

The respondents denied that any binding agreement or partnership existed and asserted that payments made were loans.

The court found overwhelming objective evidence that the parties had agreed to a 50/50 partnership and share ownership arrangement, including communications, conduct toward third parties, and treatment of a $3.5 million invoice representing the value of services contributed to the restructuring.

The court concluded that the respondent’s subsequent exclusion of the applicant from corporate management was oppressive.

As a remedy, the court ordered a buyout of the applicant’s 50% interest at fair value to be determined through an independent valuation process and confirmed the existence of the shareholder loan.

A motion was brought in a receivership proceeding to lift a stay of proceedings to permit continuation of a construction lien action and allow the lien claimant to set the action down for trial before the statutory expiry of the lien.

The receiver did not oppose lifting the stay but sought conditions, including setting aside a default judgment and noting in default entered against the debtor shortly after the receivership order.

The court held that the default judgment had been obtained contrary to the stay imposed by the appointment order and therefore had no force or effect.

Applying principles governing the lifting of insolvency stays and balancing prejudice to the parties, the court concluded that it was appropriate to lift the stay subject to conditions.

The court ordered that the noting in default and default judgment be set aside and permitted the receiver to defend the lien action.