The applicant, Aleksandra Mielczarek, sought an expansion of a court-appointed supervisor's mandate to conduct an on-site monitoring of the respondent companies' financial activities.
This was to verify cash sales and address discrepancies in financial reporting for the purpose of valuing shares in an ongoing oppression remedy application under section 248 of the Business Corporations Act.
The respondents did not oppose the monitoring but argued the applicant should bear the costs.
The court found the additional investigation necessary and reasonable given the nature of the business (restaurant/banquet hall with high cash transactions) and prior issues with financial transparency.
The court ordered the respondents to retain the supervisor for a four-week on-site monitoring period and to bear all associated costs.
