John Rowinski

The Applicant sought a declaration that the Respondents' right to purchase its shares, pursuant to an agreement, was terminated and of no further force and effect.

The Respondents argued the right had not expired and the agreement remained in force.

The court found the agreement enforceable, despite the Applicant's arguments regarding privity of contract and uncertainty.

The court interpreted the agreement to mean that the right to purchase shares was not terminated by default, but rather incurred a penalty.

The court also found that the parties' conduct caused the agreement to remain in force, and the Applicant breached its duty of good faith by not disclosing its position that the buyback right had expired while continuing to accept payments.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant LawPRO brought a motion to enforce a purported settlement under Rule 49.09.

The plaintiffs had offered to dismiss their claim against LawPRO without costs.

LawPRO purported to accept the offer but added a condition requiring all cross-claiming defendants to execute a release.

The court found that this conditional acceptance constituted a counter-offer, which the plaintiffs never accepted.

The plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their original offer.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no binding settlement existed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend his amended Statement of Claim to add additional defendants, including all trustees or former trustees of a First Nation trust, the trust itself, and the Band Council.

The underlying action alleged breach of fiduciary duty, improper exercise of discretion, and conflict of interest arising from the denial of trust funding for the plaintiff’s business proposal.

The court held that the proposed amendments largely consisted of evidentiary material, repetitive or irrelevant allegations, and claims against entities not capable of being sued.

The court also found that the limitation period had expired for adding additional parties and that permitting the amendments would cause prejudice and further delay a long‑standing action already set down for trial.

The motion to amend was dismissed.