John B. Brennan

The plaintiffs, a husband and wife, brought an action for wrongful dismissal against the defendants, a restaurant corporation and its majority financial backer.

The wife also claimed a remedy for shareholder oppression under s. 248 of the OBCA.

The court found that the wife was not expressly or constructively dismissed, but rather had resigned from her employment.

The husband's wrongful dismissal claim was also dismissed as he had received adequate payment in lieu of notice.

On the oppression claim, the court found that the defendants' failure to provide annual audited financial statements and the majority backer's post-litigation correspondence violated the wife's reasonable expectations as a shareholder.

The court ordered the purchase of the wife's shares, valuing them at $1.00 as of the date of the original oppressive conduct in 2010, given the corporation's significant debt at that time.

Claims for unjust enrichment and fraudulent misrepresentation were dismissed, as was the defendants' counterclaim for defamation.

The appellant tenant and respondent landlord disagreed over the interpretation of their commercial lease on two points: whether the leased premises included a parking area owned by the City of London and licensed to the landlord, and whether the landlord's right to exclusive use of office space permitted the landlord to lease that space to a third party.

The application judge found against the tenant on both points.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision regarding the parking area but reversed on the office space issue, finding that the lease language clearly distinguished between "use" (reserved exclusively to the landlord) and "access or entry" (afforded to the landlord and invitees), and therefore the landlord could not lease the office to a third party.

Following a successful urgent motion to compel the sale of commercial real estate, the court determined the costs payable by the unsuccessful co-owner who opposed the sale.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) and the principle of proportionality.

Costs were awarded to the moving parties in the amount of $6,000 and to the supporting respondent in the amount of $3,350, payable by the opposing respondent.