Dana L. Eichler

Following a motion to strike where personal claims against the individual defendants were struck but the oppression remedy claim survived, the court held a case management conference to settle the terms of the order.

The court issued a file direction settling the order and providing procedural directions for the delivery of a fresh as amended statement of claim, subsequent pleadings, and discovery.

Following a motion to strike where success was equally divided, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The moving parties had successfully struck personal claims against the individual defendants but failed to strike the oppression remedy claim.

The responding party had to amend its pleadings to save the oppression claim.

The court found neither party was substantially successful and fixed costs at $40,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable in the cause.

The plaintiff sued a corporation and its directors for damages arising from defective shut-off valves.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the personal claims against the directors, including negligence, inducing breach of contract, piercing the corporate veil, and an oppression remedy.

The court struck the negligence and inducing breach of contract claims, applying the rule in Said v. Butt, and struck the claim to pierce the corporate veil.

However, the court declined to strike the oppression remedy claim, finding that the plaintiff had pleaded sufficient material facts to support a reasonable expectation that the corporation's affairs would be conducted to protect its interests as a creditor.