J. Groia

The applicants sought leave to appeal an arbitral award that dismissed their claims against former employees for breach of a non-solicitation clause and breach of confidence.

The applicants alleged the arbitrator committed several errors of law, including finding that responding to a Request for Proposal did not constitute solicitation and failing to find a breach of confidence.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the alleged errors were either questions of mixed fact and law or not errors of law, and would not significantly affect the rights of the parties.

In a shareholders’ dispute involving a corporation operating casinos abroad, the applicant sought interim injunctive relief against a trustee holding shares as bare trustee for the applicant and another beneficial owner.

The trustee refused to transfer the shares, asserting the beneficial owners were defaulting shareholders under a shareholders’ agreement and therefore could not exercise shareholder rights.

Applying the test in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (A.G.), the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the trustee breached fiduciary duties by asserting personal shareholder rights in conflict with his obligations as trustee.

The court also found risk of irreparable harm if the trustee continued acting as though the beneficial owners had no rights.

Interim orders were granted restraining the trustee from exercising rights attached to the trust shares and directing cooperation among the shareholders to maintain ordinary course operations pending the hearing of the application.

A shareholder applied under the Canada Business Corporations Act for orders directing the calling of a shareholder meeting, compelling corporate compliance with statutory disclosure and governance obligations, and restraining the remaining directors from transacting business.

The respondent corporation’s board had lost quorum, lacked resident Canadian directors, failed to hold required shareholder meetings, and had defaulted on continuous disclosure obligations under securities legislation.

The court found that extraordinary circumstances justified judicial intervention under s. 144 of the CBCA to call and supervise a shareholder meeting.

Compliance orders were also granted under s. 247 of the CBCA, and restrictions imposed on the remaining directors’ powers due to the absence of board quorum.

To preserve the company’s affairs pending the shareholder meeting, the court directed that a temporary receiver and manager be appointed.