Gurpreet S. Jassal

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.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action relying on deemed admissions arising from the defendant’s failure to respond to a Request to Admit.

The defendant brought a cross‑motion seeking leave to withdraw the deemed admissions and an extension of time to respond, arguing the failure was inadvertent because the company had been represented by a layperson unfamiliar with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court applied the test governing withdrawal of admissions and accepted that the failure was inadvertent and that any prejudice could be compensated in costs.

However, the court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate a genuine issue requiring a trial.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for damages equivalent to three months’ notice.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default summary judgment that had set aside two property transfers as fraudulent conveyances.

The court found that the defendant failed to satisfy the preconditions for setting aside a default judgment, as his explanation for the default was implausible, he delayed in seeking relief, and he failed to present a defence on the merits.

The court also rejected the argument that the plaintiff had no standing to attack the transfers because he was not a creditor at the time they were made, noting that the Fraudulent Conveyances Act protects both past and future victims of fraud.

The motion was dismissed.