4 total
Co‑operative by‑law upheld but automatic expulsion invalid; board must vote to disqualify members.
A member of a limousine drivers’ co‑operative brought an application under the Co‑operative Corporations Act seeking an order compelling the co‑operative to enforce its by‑law disqualifying members who held interests in competing airport limousine services.
Certain respondents had acquired shares in a holding company that owned a competing limousine operator.
The court held that the by‑law governing membership qualifications was validly enacted and that members were estopped from challenging its validity after years of operating under it.
However, the provision purporting to automatically terminate membership upon breach was inconsistent with the statute, which requires expulsion by board resolution after due process.
The court directed that the board may disqualify members with interests in the competing company following proper procedures but dismissed the application against a respondent who had divested his shares.
Appeal dismissed; application judge correctly found appellant's solicitor fraudulently diverted mortgage repayment funds.
The appellant appealed an order finding that its solicitor, retained to discharge a mortgage, fraudulently diverted the respondent's repayment funds to himself.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge's findings were well supported by the record.
Successful defendant awarded $3,661.90 in partial indemnity costs.
Following a decision in which the defendant was successful, the court determined the issue of costs.
Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principle that costs must be reasonable and fair, the court awarded the defendant costs on a partial indemnity scale fixed at $3,661.90, payable by the plaintiff within 60 days.
Leave to appeal stay of wrongful dismissal action pending human rights complaint dismissed.
The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order staying her wrongful dismissal action pending the resolution of her human rights complaint.
The plaintiff argued the motion judge erred in relying on certain rules and misapprehended the timeline of the human rights investigation.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to meet the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4), as the motion judge's exercise of discretion was reasonable given the plaintiff's delay in issuing the statement of claim and the progress of the human rights complaint.
