D. Kenneth Gibson

The decision concerns a shareholder dispute following the breakdown of business relations among the founders of Rideau Elevator Services Inc. and its holding company, 12319896 Canada Limited.

The court found that the defendants, Wilcox and Wheeler, unfairly disregarded Cullain’s reasonable expectations and oppressed him by dismissing him as an employee and purporting to remove him as a director.

The court granted Cullain’s motion for summary judgment, ordered the corporate defendants to purchase Cullain’s shares, and awarded damages for wrongful dismissal.

Following a trial where the plaintiffs were awarded $328,396.82 for breach of contract, the parties made submissions on costs.

The plaintiffs sought costs of approximately $500,000, while the defendant sought costs from the date of its Rule 49 offer.

The court noted that the plaintiffs' costs were driven by multiple unmeritorious causes of action and that the defendant's offer triggered the costs consequences of Rule 49.10(2).

Balancing the plaintiffs' partial success against the defendant's offer and the plaintiffs' unreasonable litigation conduct, the court exercised its discretion to award no costs to either party.

The defendant brought a motion following a trial to seal certain exhibits to protect litigation privilege related to a separate class proceeding.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

The court noted that litigation privilege exists for the benefit of the plaintiff class in the separate proceeding, and therefore class counsel should have the opportunity to waive or defend it.

The motion was adjourned to be brought back with formal notice to class counsel.

The plaintiff, a former law student, conceived the idea of using a class proceeding to resolve the issue of unpaid royalties to unlocatable musicians.

She brought the idea to the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) at the University of Ottawa, which formed a consortium with class counsel.

The plaintiff and CIPPIC entered into an agreement guaranteeing her 5% of the counsel fees awarded.

The plaintiff later sued the university for $3.5 million, alleging breach of copyright, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment, arguing she was entitled to a larger share.

The court dismissed the tort and equitable claims, finding no breach of copyright or fiduciary duty, and upheld the written agreement as binding and reasonable.

The plaintiff was awarded $328,396.82, representing her agreed 5% share of the counsel fees.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought relief from forfeiture, an order compelling arbitration, and rent abatement after the respondent landlord issued a notice to quit upon the expiration of their lease.

The court found that relief from forfeiture was unavailable because the lease had expired by its terms, not due to a breach or default by the tenant.

The court also determined that the parties had abandoned their agreement to arbitrate by failing to appoint an arbitrator within the stipulated timeframe.

Consequently, the claims for arbitration and rent abatement, which was an issue for arbitration, were dismissed.

Dr. Baldeep Kaur Saran, a dentist, applied for a discharge from bankruptcy, which was opposed by her Trustee and the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

The bankruptcy was tax-driven, stemming from her participation in a 'natural person' detaxing scheme and a charitable giving scheme, resulting in over $3.1 million in tax debt (including penalties and interest).

The court found that her assets were less than 50 cents on the dollar of unsecured liabilities and that she contributed to the bankruptcy through unjustifiable extravagance in living.

The court rejected her claims of being duped and imputed income to her based on her past earnings and her husband's control over their combined income.

A conditional discharge was granted, requiring her to pay an additional $200,000 to the Trustee, file accurate tax returns, remain current with CRA obligations, and her discharge was suspended for a minimum of 36 months.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a commercial tenant whose barbershop was damaged by fire, sued for $1.2 million in damages after the landlord terminated the lease.

Although the plaintiff claimed only damages and not an interest in land, the lease contained a clause limiting the landlord's liability to their interest in the property.

The Master held that this clause effectively created an interest in land by restricting the plaintiff's potential recovery to the property itself.

The Master ordered that the CPL would remain in place unless the defendants waived reliance on the limitation of liability clause and undertook to provide 30 days' notice of any sale of the property.