Dennis Wong

The plaintiffs sought interim relief by way of a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against five properties and an oppression remedy under the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA), specifically the appointment of an inspector to audit financial information.

The court dismissed the request for a CPL, finding that the plaintiffs had no direct interest in the properties, which were corporate assets, and that a CPL would cause disproportionate harm to the defendants.

However, the court granted the request for an inspector, finding that the plaintiffs had standing and established a prima facie case of oppression based on their termination, inconsistent treatment as an employee versus partner, and denial of financial information.

The court determined that an inspector was necessary to clarify commingled funds and determine the plaintiffs' interests, with costs to be borne by the plaintiffs initially.

The plaintiffs, shareholders in Domenic Cosentino and Co. Limited (DCCL), brought a motion seeking an injunction to halt the sale of the company's sole asset, the Wolfedale Road property, an interim preservation order, or a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), alleging oppressive conduct by the controlling shareholders, Mary and Tony Cosentino.

The plaintiffs claimed Mary and Tony had mismanaged company finances, depleted property equity through undisclosed mortgages, and acted without transparency regarding the property sale and their personal financial benefits.

The court found that Mary and Tony's actions were oppressive, establishing a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm if the sale proceeded without safeguards.

However, the court denied the injunction, preservation order, and CPL, finding that the balance of convenience favored allowing the sale to proceed due to the company's dire financial state and mortgage default.

Instead, the court ordered that the net proceeds of the sale be paid into court, and Tony's disputed commission be held pending trial.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for document production in a proposed class proceeding regarding a data breach, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $9,281.82.

The plaintiffs argued for no costs due to divided success, or alternatively $2,500 or $5,000.

The court agreed with the plaintiffs' final alternative submission and awarded the defendants costs fixed at $5,000 all-inclusive.

In a proposed class action arising from data breaches, the plaintiffs brought a motion seeking production of Yahoo's database of 16.9 million Canadian users to cross-examine the defendants' expert on the certification motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet the onus of explaining how access to the database was relevant to the certification motion and that the request was disproportionate.