J. Diacur

The applicant, a common shareholder in a family-owned real estate holding corporation, brought an application seeking dissent rights regarding the sale of corporate assets, an oppression remedy, and the appointment of a liquidator.

The court found that the applicant's dissent rights under the Business Corporations Act had been validly waived by a Unanimous Shareholders Agreement that granted the mother sole discretion to sell assets.

The oppression claim was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish a reasonable expectation of participation or any unfair prejudice.

However, the court ordered the appointment of an independent liquidator to wind up the corporation, finding that the current directors lacked the necessary expertise to manage the complex tax and legal implications of the liquidation.

The applicants, five individuals experiencing homelessness, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the City of Hamilton from enforcing a by-law prohibiting camping in city parks.

They argued that enforcement during the COVID-19 pandemic and housing crisis violated their rights under section 7 of the Charter and the Human Rights Code.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test.

While finding a serious issue to be tried, the court concluded the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm specific to themselves, as they had been offered or received shelter.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the City, citing the public interest in safe parks, the City's efforts to provide shelter and supports, and the health and safety risks associated with the encampments.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendants, the City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority, to answer questions refused during examinations for discovery.

The underlying action involves a minor plaintiff who sustained catastrophic injuries after falling from a trail at Albion Falls Park.

The court reviewed the refused questions, applying the test for relevance under Rule 31.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ordered the defendants to answer several questions related to prior safety concerns, incident reports, and the identities of individuals with knowledge, while upholding refusals for irrelevant questions.

Success was divided, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.