2 total
De facto Chief Operating Officer had authority to retain legal counsel to represent the corporation.
The applicants challenged the authority of the respondent corporation's de facto Chief Operating Officer to retain legal counsel to represent the corporation in an oppression and receivership application.
The court found that although the COO was not formally appointed in accordance with the shareholders agreement, she was informally appointed by the late controlling director in good faith.
The court held that as the de facto COO, she had the authority to appoint counsel to represent the corporation's interests.
Respondents' request for early access to applicant's medical records before filing a response denied.
The applicant alleged employment discrimination based on race and related grounds, specifically citing discriminatory name-calling by a supervisor.
Instead of filing a Response, the respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking extensive access to the applicant's medical records from the employer's occupational health file.
The Tribunal dismissed the request as entirely without merit, finding that the medical records were largely irrelevant to the primary issue of name-calling and that the lack of such records did not prevent the respondents from meaningfully responding to the Application.
The respondents were ordered to file their Response within 14 days.
