2 total
The court awarded the applicant $950,000 in full-indemnity costs due to the respondent's bad faith and fraudulent conduct.
The applicant sought over $1 million in costs on a full-indemnity basis following a 12-day trial where she was largely successful.
The respondent conceded costs but argued for a lower amount of $350,000.
The court found the respondent engaged in bad faith and unreasonable conduct, including fraudulent transfer of shares and failure to provide financial disclosure.
The court adjusted the applicant's requested costs for duplicative and excessive billing by some firms but ultimately awarded $950,000, finding it proportionate and reasonable given the respondent's conduct and the complexity of the litigation.
Court orders limited re‑valuation after valuator failed to meet working capital standards.
The applicants sought to set aside a share valuation conducted pursuant to a unanimous shareholders' agreement following the exercise of a put right requiring the purchase of their minority shareholding.
The agreement required the valuator to determine fair market value using generally accepted valuation principles and provided that the valuator's determination would be final and binding.
The court held that judicial intervention is limited to circumstances where the valuator fails to comply with the contractual mandate, not merely where alleged valuation errors occur.
Most complaints raised by the applicants related to matters of professional judgment and therefore did not justify court intervention.
However, the valuator failed to comply with generally accepted valuation standards regarding the analysis of working capital.
Rather than setting aside the entire valuation report, the court ordered a limited independent analysis to determine the appropriate working capital adjustment while leaving the remainder of the valuation intact.
