5 total
Action against Crown dismissed for failure to give statutory notice and expired limitation period.
The defendant Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion to strike or dismiss the plaintiff’s civil claim arising from a criminal prosecution that ended in acquittal.
The court held that the action was a nullity because the plaintiff failed to provide the mandatory 60‑day notice required before commencing proceedings against the Crown under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act and the Ministry of the Attorney General Act.
The court further found that any claim for malicious prosecution was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, as the action was commenced more than two years after the acquittal.
Additional claims for misfeasance in public office and conspiracy were struck for lack of material particulars and as frivolous and vexatious.
Summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.
Court limits reimbursement to reasonable expenses directly tied to calling and holding shareholders’ meeting.
A shareholder who successfully obtained a court‑ordered shareholders’ meeting under s. 144(1) of the Canada Business Corporations Act sought reimbursement from the corporation for expenses incurred in requisitioning, calling, and holding the meeting.
The court held that although s. 144 does not expressly address reimbursement, it implicitly authorizes recovery of reasonable expenses analogous to those recoverable under s. 143(6) for requisitioned meetings.
However, only costs directly related to requisitioning, calling, and holding the meeting are recoverable, not broader strategic or governance‑change expenses incurred by dissident shareholders.
Applying that principle, the court allowed reimbursement for certain printing, meeting administration, advisory, and legal costs, but limited recovery to reasonable amounts tied to the meeting itself.
Court defers to board’s business judgment on timing of requisitioned shareholder meeting.
A shareholder holding more than 5% of a corporation’s voting shares requisitioned a special meeting under the Canada Business Corporations Act seeking to replace the entire board of directors.
The board scheduled the requisitioned meeting to occur together with the corporation’s annual general meeting approximately 155 days after the requisition was delivered.
The applicant sought a court order under s. 144 of the CBCA requiring the meeting to occur sooner, arguing the delay was unreasonable and intended to frustrate shareholder rights.
The court held that the timing of the meeting fell within the board’s reasonable business judgment, noting legitimate concerns about costs, management resources, shareholder participation, and the desirability of combining the special meeting with the AGM.
Finding no improper purpose and no demonstrated prejudice to the shareholder, the court declined to interfere with the board’s decision.
Costs awarded against plaintiff for prolonged failure to comply with discovery and costs orders.
The moving defendants sought sanctions after the first plaintiff failed to comply with earlier court orders requiring answers to undertakings and refused questions from discovery and payment of previously ordered motion costs.
The court considered Rules 57.03 and 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing costs enforcement and sanctions for non‑compliance with interlocutory orders.
Although some progress toward compliance occurred and the delay was partly explained by counsel’s involvement in a lengthy trial and administrative issues with payment of photocopying invoices, the court found prolonged non‑compliance with two court orders.
The court held that the defendants were justified in bringing the motion and were more affected by the delay than responsible for it.
Costs of the motion were awarded against the first plaintiff.
Human rights application dismissed at summary hearing for lacking evidence of discrimination based on disability.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, claiming the respondents delayed providing his HIV test results to his family physician and disclosed his HIV status to his employer.
A summary hearing was held to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had no evidence linking the respondents' actions to his alleged disability.
Furthermore, the applicant's test results were negative and he had never been diagnosed with HIV.
The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
