4 total
The court ordered a party to re-attend cross-examination because written answers to refused questions were not provided under oath or in compliance with a prior order.
The defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim, Viola, brought a motion to compel the plaintiff/defendant to counterclaim, Alexandre (represented by Sach), to re-attend cross-examination to answer nine specific questions and follow-up questions.
The questions were initially refused and later answered in writing, but not under oath or in accordance with a prior court order.
The court granted the motion, finding that while re-attendance is not an absolute right, it was reasonable and just given the circumstances, particularly the failure to comply with a previous order regarding the conduct of cross-examinations and the lack of sworn testimony.
The court also awarded Viola $1,500 in costs.
Undistributed liquidation funds must be paid to Public Guardian and Trustee.
The applicant corporation, undergoing liquidation, brought a motion for directions regarding the distribution of assets attributable to shareholders whose whereabouts were unknown.
The applicant proposed transferring the undistributed funds to a related cultural organization to hold in trust, or alternatively to the Public Guardian and Trustee.
The Public Guardian and Trustee opposed the proposal and argued that the funds should be delivered pursuant to s. 268(1) of the Corporations Act.
The court held that the statutory scheme under the Corporations Act operates as the default mechanism for handling distributions to unlocated shareholders and maximizes their opportunity to claim their entitlements.
The court directed that the funds be delivered to the Public Guardian and Trustee to be held in trust in accordance with the statutory provisions.
Directions given for corporate liquidation; sealing order granted for shareholder lists and initial distribution approved.
The applicant corporation, authorized to wind up its affairs, sought directions on the distribution of its assets to shareholders.
A shareholder brought a companion motion seeking a reference to a Master to identify shareholders and for an accounting, which was dismissed as the corporation had provided sufficient evidence of its process.
The court granted a sealing order over the confidential Shareholder Lists, applying the Sierra Club test.
The court approved an initial distribution of $1 million but required further court approval for subsequent distributions, and directed the corporation to continue investing funds in an interest-bearing account.
Appeal allowed; ambiguous will interpreted as granting a life estate rather than an absolute gift.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring that the testator's wife was the sole beneficiary of his estate.
The will, drafted on a stationer's form, contained ambiguous language granting the wife the estate 'for her use absolutely' but also included a gift over to the testator's nieces and nephews upon her death.
The Divisional Court set aside the trial judgment, finding that the trial judge erred in applying the rule in Re Walker.
Applying the 'armchair rule' from Re Burke, the Court held that the testator's clear intention was to grant his wife a life interest in his half of the estate, with the remainder vesting in his nieces and nephews.
