2 total
Cross-applications for oppression dismissed as both shareholders engaged in a mutual war of attrition.
Two 50/50 shareholders of an IT security company brought cross-applications for oppression under s. 241 of the CBCA following a breakdown in their relationship.
The applicant alleged the respondent misappropriated corporate opportunities and improperly dissolved the company, while the respondent alleged the applicant misappropriated funds and improperly terminated his position.
The court dismissed both applications, finding that both parties engaged in a 'war of attrition' and neither established that the other's conduct warranted an oppression remedy or caused compensable damages.
Motion to strike granted in part to remove references to privileged settlement discussions from pleadings.
The defendant employer in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike paragraphs from the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim and Reply and Defence to Counterclaim.
The defendant argued the paragraphs improperly pleaded privileged settlement discussions and without prejudice communications.
The Master partially granted the motion, striking the paragraphs that explicitly detailed settlement offers and negotiations as scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.
However, the Master permitted the plaintiff to maintain pleadings alleging bad faith and after-the-fact cause, as these constituted material facts supporting claims for punitive and aggravated damages.
