The defendants brought a motion to enforce a binding settlement agreement reached on May 17, 2019, to resolve an oppression remedy and wrongful dismissal claim.
The plaintiff opposed, arguing the defendants unilaterally modified a term regarding the share acquisition structure and failed to act in good faith.
The court found a legally binding agreement existed, which explicitly granted the defendants the prerogative to consider an alternative share acquisition structure and agree to it only if persuaded it was tax advantageous or neutral to them.
The court determined that the defendants had fulfilled their obligation by consulting their accountant and deciding against the alternative structure.
The court granted the defendants' motion to enforce the settlement and dismissed the plaintiff's cross-motion, concluding the settlement was reasonable and just.
