David A. Decker

This application concerned a dispute between minority and majority factions of the board of trustees of a not-for-profit religious organization (Toronto Kalibari) over the amendment of corporate by-laws during a transition to the Canada Not-for-profit Corporation Act.

The applicant alleged irregular and improper behaviour by the respondents in retaining corporate counsel and drafting new by-laws.

The court found that the respondents acted in bad faith in retaining counsel and inviting them to a board meeting without proper notice, declaring these actions unlawful and unenforceable.

The court refused to impose the applicant's proposed by-laws or grant leave for a derivative action, instead ordering a return to the position after an earlier consent order, requiring the corporation to retain new independent counsel.

Following a motion concerning document production and inspection of property under Rule 32.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court addressed costs.

The moving party obtained limited relief permitting a partial inspection of the responding party’s property but was unsuccessful in obtaining additional production.

The responding parties successfully resisted portions of the inspection request but not others.

Given the divided success and the limited relevance of the moving party’s settlement offers, the court held that neither side was significantly more successful.

No order as to costs was made.

The plaintiff brought a motion for further document production and an order permitting inspection of the defendants' custom-built home under Rule 32.01.

The underlying action involved claims of copyright infringement regarding exterior precast moulds, and a counterclaim for diminution in value due to the loss of the home's uniqueness.

The Master dismissed the request for interior design documents as irrelevant to the pleadings.

The Master granted the request for an inspection by a real estate appraiser and an interior designer, finding it necessary to test the defendants' claim of uniqueness, but denied an inspection by an architect.

The Master also set conditions for the inspection, allowing the plaintiff's counsel to attend and permitting photography, while denying the defendants' request for a sealing order.