Respondents brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) and (d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside a prior order requiring the purchase of one shareholder’s shares in a closely held corporation.
They argued that subsequent deterioration of a shareholder’s health, reduced developer interest in the company’s property, and litigation delay constituted new facts justifying the order’s reversal and instead requested a sale of the property and winding up of the company.
The court held that the alleged circumstances were not new facts arising after the order but risks that were known or reasonably foreseeable when the order was made.
The court further found that setting aside the order would not expedite resolution and that a subsequent order and appellate direction remained in force.
The motion was dismissed and the prior valuation process ordered by the Divisional Court was to proceed.
