Kevin L. MacDonald

Three related applications were brought concerning shareholder disputes in three closely held corporations operating as insurance brokerages and an investment holding company.

The applicants sought declarations of oppression and various remedial orders, including share buyouts and winding up.

The court dismissed all claims of oppression, finding no conduct that violated reasonable expectations.

However, the court found that the shareholders of two of the operating companies were hopelessly deadlocked and unable to work together.

Consequently, the court ordered the winding up of those two companies under the just and equitable ground of the Business Corporations Act, while dismissing the request to wind up the investment holding company.

Following a summary judgment mini-trial where the plaintiff was awarded $559,926.18 for breach of trust under the Construction Act, the court determined costs and interest.

The court found the defendants' withholding of trust funds to be unreasonable and unjustified, warranting substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff was awarded $131,776.36 in costs and pre-judgment interest at 1.5%.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an arbitration award concerning the division of proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned property.

The arbitrator had credited the respondents with $30,730 for construction costs incurred prior to the execution of Minutes of Settlement.

The Superior Court of Justice granted leave to appeal, finding that the arbitrator made an extricable error of law by ignoring the plain wording of the Minutes of Settlement, which reset the parties' rights as of the date of execution.

The appeal was allowed, and the arbitration award was varied to remove the $30,730 credit.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded $150,899 in damages for the termination of a consulting agreement, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs based on two offers to settle, but the court found neither met the requirements of Rule 49.10.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs but reduced the quantum to $20,000 all-inclusive due to the plaintiff's late production of material documents shortly before trial, which breached the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court determined the fair market value of the applicant's shares and the costs of the proceeding following a successful oppression application.

The court rejected the respondents' liquidation approach to valuation, preferring a going-concern adjusted book value approach, and fixed the share value at $668,674.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the applicant and counter-respondents, citing the respondents' incivility, excessive posturing, and unfounded allegations of fraud.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendants failed to close on a residential real estate transaction.

The defendants had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for $2,250,000 but failed to pay the second deposit and repudiated the contract due to financing issues.

The plaintiffs relisted the property and eventually sold it for $1,770,000.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages by not relisting at a lower price immediately.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, holding that the plaintiffs acted reasonably in their mitigation efforts, and granted summary judgment for the difference in sale price plus special damages.

Following a trial to determine the Gross Rentable Area of a leased premises, both parties claimed success and sought partial indemnity costs.

The court found the defendant to be the successful party, as the determined area was significantly higher than the plaintiff's position, resulting in substantial additional rent over the lease term.

The court awarded the defendant costs but reduced the claimed amount due to excessive photocopying disbursements and time spent on an unsuccessful argument regarding BOMA standards.

A municipal councillor brought a defamation action against the mayor and several councillors arising from a public council statement and related legal opinion criticizing the councillor’s blog posts about senior municipal staff.

The court held the statements were not defamatory and were substantially true in substance, as the plaintiff’s blogs contained disparaging criticism of staff contrary to the municipal code of conduct.

Even if defamatory, the publications were protected by qualified privilege because they were a measured response to the plaintiff’s public letter to the editor and were made to correct the public record.

The court found no evidence of malice and noted the defendants relied in good faith on legal advice before publishing the statement.

The action was dismissed.

During a defamation trial involving a municipal councillor and the mayor along with other councillors, the plaintiff sought to introduce a report by the municipal Integrity Commissioner into evidence.

The defendants objected to its admissibility.

The court ruled the report inadmissible, finding that it did not meet the necessity and reliability criteria for the principled exception to hearsay.

The court noted that under the Municipal Act, the Integrity Commissioner is not a compellable witness, meaning the defendants would be unable to cross-examine him.

The court concluded that admitting the report would be highly prejudicial and could lead the jury to afford the untested opinion undue weight.

The plaintiff, an assistant store manager, was terminated for just cause after failing to prevent a workplace safety violation where a wheelchair-bound employee was lifted to a second floor using an order picker forklift.

The court applied the McKinley contextual approach and found that while the plaintiff's failure to stop the lift was serious misconduct, it did not strike at the heart of the employment relationship to justify summary dismissal.

The court awarded the plaintiff 10 months' salary in lieu of notice, but declined to award aggravated or moral damages.