Gordon A. Meiklejohn

The plaintiffs brought an action seeking a "corporate divorce" and remedies for oppression under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act against the defendant, a 50% shareholder and director of the corporate plaintiff.

The defendant had abandoned his role in the business but continued to make unauthorized withdrawals from the corporate accounts for personal expenses, while also failing to pay personal taxes which resulted in CRA demands against the corporation.

The court found the defendant's conduct to be oppressive and ordered the corporation to purchase his shares for cancellation.

The court valued the defendant's 50% interest at $217,500 based on a current valuation without a minority discount, and deducted $50,000 for specific unauthorized withdrawals and tax payments made on his behalf, resulting in a final buyout price of $167,500.

The court also dismissed the defendant's late request to amend his pleadings to raise a limitations defence due to prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The applicant sought a review of spousal and child support provisions in a separation agreement, arguing the respondent was intentionally underemployed.

The court found the respondent intentionally underemployed since separation and imputed income to her for support purposes.

The court also confirmed the applicant's income calculation and the 50/50 net disposable income split, and addressed section 7 expenses.

A further review was ordered to determine the duration and basis of spousal support entitlement.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the action as statute-barred, arguing the two-year limitation period had expired.

The plaintiffs contended that the discovery date of their claims, involving allegations of breach of contract and misappropriation of partnership assets, was later than asserted by the defendants, or that the precise date of discovery required a trial.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial, particularly regarding the credibility of conflicting accounts about when the plaintiffs became aware of the full extent of their claims, including the disputed receipt of a critical letter.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

Following the resolution of two competing motions regarding child support and access, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent was entirely successful on both motions, while the applicant had delivered an excessive amount of irrelevant and inadmissible evidence.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $34,765 to dissuade excessive and inappropriate proceedings.

The court determined costs following competing family law motions concerning the appointment of a professional to prepare a Voice of the Child Report and disclosure of a professional’s file.

Both parties achieved partial success on the motions.

The court found that neither party demonstrated unreasonable conduct under the Family Law Rules despite allegations from both sides.

However, the applicant had made an offer to settle regarding disclosure of the professional’s file and ultimately achieved the result contemplated by that offer.

In recognition of that offer, the court ordered the respondent to pay modest costs for the disclosure motion while each party bore their own costs for the remaining issues.

In an international custody dispute involving children brought from Ukraine to Ontario, the court addressed several interlocutory motions before a scheduled jurisdiction trial under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The applicant sought production of a parenting professional’s file and appointment of a professional to prepare a Voice of the Child Report, while the respondent requested appointment of a different professional and validation of service of responding documents.

The court ordered full disclosure of the professional’s file, finding no confidentiality or privilege preventing production.

It also appointed an independent professional to prepare the Voice of the Child Report and confirmed that service of the respondent’s Answer and financial materials on the applicant’s counsel was effective.

Directions were given for production timelines and further procedural steps before the upcoming trial.

The plaintiff consultant brought an action after being terminated one week into a six‑month consulting contract as research coordinator for a community health project.

The court found that a binding verbal consulting agreement had been formed despite the absence of a written contract.

Because the plaintiff was an independent contractor rather than an employee, the contract was terminable at will and damages were not the full contract value.

The court awarded compensation on a quantum meruit basis for six days of work performed and granted punitive damages due to the defendant’s harsh and deliberate manner of termination.

Following a civil proceeding, the court addressed costs on consent of the parties.

The successful party was awarded a lump sum for costs inclusive of fees and disbursements.

The court also ordered prejudgment interest on two damages components beginning on specified dates at the statutory rate.

Post‑judgment interest was ordered on the full judgment amount.

The endorsement formalized the agreed financial consequences of the judgment.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal against her former employer.

The employer unilaterally altered the plaintiff's job description from office manager to accountant and revoked her ability to attend bonus trips and partnership meetings.

The plaintiff rejected the new terms, and the employer subsequently terminated her.

The court found that the plaintiff did not resign and that the employer did not have just cause for dismissal.

The court held that the employer repudiated the employment contract by unilaterally changing fundamental terms.

The plaintiff was awarded $256,902.93 in damages, representing the balance of her salary under a five-year contract and the value of a 15% ownership interest promised in the contract.