Gordon Vance

The appellants, limited partners in a family-owned limited partnership, appealed the dismissal of their application seeking a declaration that they were entitled to an annual cash distribution of 100% of the partnership's net income.

They argued that section 11(1) of the Limited Partnerships Act and the Accumulations Act mandated such distributions, overriding the general partner's discretion under the limited partnership agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the right to a 'share' of profits under the Act does not equate to a statutory obligation to make annual payments, and that the Accumulations Act does not apply to commercial endeavours.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in a breach of contract action against a home builder.

The defendant objected to certain paragraphs in the plaintiff's supporting affidavit, arguing they contained evidence of settlement negotiations and should be struck.

At a case conference to determine the timing of the defendant's challenge, the court applied the hybrid approach to striking affidavits and held that the admissibility of the impugned paragraphs should be determined by the judge hearing the summary judgment motion, rather than in a pre-emptive motion.

In a will challenge and dependants' support proceeding, the moving parties sought production of financial records from Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. (GRE), a third-party corporation in which the deceased held a 12.5% interest, and leave to examine two non-parties regarding the deceased's will.

The court granted both motions, finding that the financial records were relevant to valuing the estate and assessing the testamentary sense of the will, and that the non-parties possessed relevant information not obtainable elsewhere.

The plaintiff, a co-founder of 1PLUS12, brought an action against numerous defendants, including the corporation's lawyers and investors, alleging a Ponzi scheme and claiming unpaid compensation.

Several groups of defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court struck the plaintiff's affidavit and the claims against the investors, finding the plaintiff lacked standing to advance claims on their behalf.

The court also struck certain scandalous and irrelevant paragraphs from the pleadings.

However, the court dismissed the motions to strike the entirety of the claims against the defendant lawyers and law firms, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims for negligence and misrepresentation would fail.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the sale of a commercial property, or alternatively, to hold 50% of the net proceeds of any sale in trust.

The plaintiffs claimed that a 1997 transfer of their 50% interest in the corporation owning the property was subject to an unwritten trust agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm as they were ultimately seeking monetary compensation.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the defendants due to the plaintiffs' significant delay in prosecuting the action.

The moving parties, six limited partners holding 54.5% of the shares in a family limited partnership, sought leave to commence a derivative action on behalf of the limited partnership and related corporate entities against the general partner, its sole director, and other parties.

The court held that while there is no statutory right for limited partners to bring a derivative action under the Limited Partnerships Act, the common law fraud exception to the rule in Foss v. Harbottle permits such an action where the general partner is the alleged wrongdoer.

Leave was granted to bring the derivative action on behalf of the limited partnership against the general partner and its director, but denied against third parties and on behalf of the underlying corporate entities.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff claimed a 50% equitable interest in a real estate property based on an oral joint venture agreement, while the defendants argued the relationship was strictly that of borrower and lender secured by promissory notes and a mortgage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence regarding the nature of the parties' relationship raised significant credibility issues that constituted a genuine issue requiring a full trial.