Geoffrey Eric Moysa

The appellant, holding 42% of the respondent corporation's shares, requisitioned a shareholders' meeting to remove certain directors.

The board rejected the requisition, claiming it was primarily to redress a personal grievance under s. 99(5)(b) of the Business Corporations Act.

The application judge agreed and dismissed the appellant's application to validate the requisition.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the application judge erred by reversing the onus and conflating personal interests with personal grievances.

The court held the dispute involved legitimate differences over corporate policy and operations, not merely personal grievances.

The appeal was allowed, and the respondent was ordered to call the meeting.

The court heard two separate motions to strike or stay pending summary judgment motions on the Commercial List.

Applying the principles from Combined Air and the proportionality requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that concerns about the appropriateness of summary judgment motions should be addressed through case management rather than formal motions to strike.

The court reviewed the proposed summary judgment motions in both actions and concluded that neither was an appropriate candidate for summary judgment due to the complexity of the issues, the voluminous records, and the need for a full trial to appreciate the evidence.

Both summary judgment motions were directed not to proceed, and the parties were ordered to prepare for trial.

In a Commercial List proceeding between franchisees and a franchisor, the defendant sought to schedule a post‑discovery partial summary judgment motion while the plaintiffs proposed proceeding directly to trial.

The court addressed the growing practice of lengthy summary judgment motions brought after discoveries and emphasized the need to consider proportionality, efficient use of judicial resources, and whether such motions would advance the interests of justice.

The court held that parties seeking to schedule lengthy post‑discovery summary judgment motions must demonstrate that the benefits outweigh the risk of added cost and delay if the motion fails.

Detailed information regarding the proposed motion, anticipated trial, and potential time savings must be provided to assist the court in making that determination.

The scheduling appointment was adjourned and directions were issued requiring the parties to file structured information before a further attendance.