The appellant appealed a master's order granting the respondent leave to maintain an action commenced while its business-name registration had lapsed and while there were alleged filing defaults under corporate disclosure legislation.
The court held the proceeding was not a nullity ab initio and that the saving provisions in the Business Names Act and Corporations Information Act were available.
Applying the statutory three-part tests, the court found sufficient evidence that the non-compliance was inadvertent, that the public had not been deceived or misled, and that the respondent was compliant at the time of the motion.
The appeal and the challenge to the $10,000 costs award were dismissed.
