D. Chitiz

A partnership sought the appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act, 1991 following the withdrawal of a former partner and the issuance of a notice of arbitration alleging breaches of the partnership agreement.

The former partner moved to stay the arbitration pending resolution of a separate civil action involving other former partners and raised counterclaims challenging the validity of provisions in the partnership agreement.

The court held that the arbitration clause in the partnership agreement was broad and that the disputes raised by the partnership clearly fell within its scope.

The court found that the respondent’s counterclaim in the civil action was a colourable attempt to sidetrack the arbitration and that the issues could properly be determined by an arbitrator.

The motion to stay the arbitration was dismissed, the respondent’s counterclaim in the civil action was stayed, and the court appointed an arbitrator pursuant to the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The applicant, a 10% minority shareholder in a landlord corporation, brought an oppression application against the majority shareholders.

The court determined preliminary issues, finding that the majority shareholders acted oppressively by leasing the corporation's property to their own related business at less than fair market value and failing to enforce the lease terms.

The court also found accounting irregularities, including the landlord corporation paying expenses that should have been paid by the tenant, and ordered remedies including the repayment of improper expenses and a buyout of the applicant's shares without a minority discount.