D. Milosevic

The plaintiff claimed beneficial ownership of two residential properties legally owned by the defendant, relying on alleged express trust documents or, alternatively, an equitable trust.

The court found the express trust documents were forgeries.

However, based on the parties' joint venture to flip the properties and their respective financial contributions to acquisition, maintenance, and improvements, the court imposed constructive trusts.

The plaintiff was awarded an 81 percent beneficial interest in one property and a 32 percent beneficial interest in the other to remedy unjust enrichment.

A shareholder dispute arose during implementation of a prior court order directing valuation of a company and providing one shareholder an option to purchase the other’s shares.

The applicant sought to replace the process with a buy/sell mechanism and contested the information to be provided to the court‑appointed appraiser, while also attempting to rely on a personal net worth statement of the respondent obtained from family law proceedings.

The court held that the appraiser should be free to evaluate all information provided by the parties and declined to prescribe limits on materials submitted.

The request to replace the previously ordered process with a buy/sell arrangement was refused, though the court varied timelines to complete the valuation.

The court also ruled that the inadvertently disclosed net worth statement remained privileged and could not be relied upon.

Following an earlier order directing the valuation of corporate shares in a closely held company and granting one shareholder an option to purchase the other’s shares, the parties were unable to agree on the appointment of a business valuer and real estate appraiser or on the terms of their mandate.

The court provided procedural directions establishing a structured nomination and selection process for both professionals, including nomination lists, conflict‑of‑interest objections, and a ranking system to determine appointments.

The court further directed that the valuer conduct the valuation of the company as a going concern without applying a minority discount and that the appraiser’s investigative recommendations be coordinated through the valuer.

Professional fees were ordered to be borne by the company.

A deadline was imposed for completion of the valuation and appraisal.