Elaine Peritz

The plaintiff corporation brought a motion for an equalization payment of $320,713.66 from the defendant corporations, arising from a prior trial decision regarding the division of corporate assets between two siblings.

The defendants brought a cross-motion seeking to recalculate the equalization payment to include the value of preference shares, which would result in the plaintiff's principal owing $2,625,000.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion and dismissed the defendants' cross-motion, finding that the calculation of the equalization payment and the exclusion of the preference shares had already been determined in prior proceedings and were therefore res judicata.

The court also resolved several ancillary issues, including the transfer of burial plots and the return of original documents, and prohibited the parties from commencing further litigation without leave.

The applicant brought an oppression application seeking an order that the respondent corporation pay $999,007.50 to redeem her preference shares.

The respondents argued the payment would render the corporation insolvent under s. 32(2) of the Business Corporations Act and sought a stay pending a related appeal.

The court found the appeal had already been dismissed and did not affect the preference shares.

The court also rejected the insolvency argument, finding the corporation had sufficient assets and equity.

The court ordered the corporation to pay the redemption amount, finding it unnecessary to determine if the failure to pay constituted oppression.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation and disclosure of real estate transactions regarding a property he previously occupied.

The defendant second mortgagee brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action against it and for a judicial sale of the property.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding damages were an adequate remedy and the plaintiff was attempting to relitigate a prior default judgment in a mortgage enforcement action.

The court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the action against it on the basis of res judicata and ordering a judicial sale of the property.

The plaintiffs, shareholders in several real estate corporations, sought leave to commence a derivative action and amended their statement of claim to add new causes of action following the discovery of a multi-million dollar fraud by a co-investor.

The defendants moved to strike the new claims and opposed the derivative action.

The court held that the motion for leave to commence a derivative action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in CIBC v. Green regarding the unavailability of nunc pro tunc orders to circumvent expired limitation periods.

The court also struck the new claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence as statute-barred, but allowed the unjust enrichment and oppression claims to proceed.