Christopher A.L. Caruana

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order appointing an inspector to investigate the financial affairs of their jointly owned pharmacies and granting the respondents leave to bring derivative actions on behalf of the corporations.

The appellants argued the dispute should be stayed in favour of arbitration, that an inspector was unnecessary, and that the oppression remedy was an adequate alternative to a derivative action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitration clauses did not apply to the corporations, the appellants had attorned to the court's jurisdiction, the inspector was necessary to uncover facts after the appellants failed to comply with production orders, and the derivative actions were in the best interests of the corporations to recover diverted funds.

The plaintiffs, a pharmacist and his holding company, brought a motion for leave to commence a derivative action on behalf of a pharmacy corporation against the defendants, another pharmacist and his wife's holding company.

The plaintiffs also sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against two commercial condominium units, a restraining order, and leave to amend their Statement of Claim.

The court dismissed the motion for a derivative action, finding it was essentially a shareholder dispute and not in the best interests of the corporation.

The requests for a CPL and a restraining order were also dismissed as the plaintiffs failed to establish a triable issue regarding an interest in the land or a strong prima facie case.

Leave to amend the Statement of Claim was partially granted.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction against former employees who started a competing business, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and improper solicitation of customers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the plaintiff failed to provide clear and non-speculative evidence of irreparable harm.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the defendants, as an injunction could financially ruin their new business, whereas the plaintiff showed no evidence of actual damage.

The plaintiff commenced a foreclosure action regarding a Multiple Unit Residential Building (MURB) investment scheme.

The investors, who had signed powers of attorney in favour of the developer, alleged financial manipulation and breach of fiduciary duty.

Given the complex financial history, the lack of proper accounting by the mortgagee, and the overlapping shareholder oppression claims, the case management judge directed a reference to determine the mortgage accounting and related issues.

The judge also ordered a stay of the foreclosure action and oppression applications pending the reference.

The appellant appealed an order striking her claim against a mortgagee for improvident sale and damage to personal property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant, as a beneficial owner, lacked standing to sue for improvident sale, as standing lies with the trustee who holds legal title.

The court also upheld the motion judge's finding that the claim for damage to personal property was statute-barred.

The plaintiff sued multiple corporate and individual defendants for fraudulent conveyance, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, and intentional interference with economic relations, alleging they stripped assets from a judgment debtor to avoid payment.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim under Rule 21 for failing to plead material facts.

The court granted the motions in part, striking the tort claims with leave to amend because the plaintiff failed to plead the specific material facts required for each cause of action against each individual defendant.

The court also struck claims for contempt and sequestration without leave to amend, holding that such relief must be sought by motion under the Rules of Civil Procedure, not as free-standing claims in an action.

Following the disposition of a motion for a stay pending appeal, the court awarded costs of the motion to the responding parties, fixed in the amount of $4,625.00 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The moving party (appellant) sought a stay pending appeal of an order removing notices it had registered on the responding parties' land.

The moving party claimed an interest in the land based on a contingent option to purchase in a Development Management Agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious question to be tried because the option likely offended the rule against perpetuities, and the moving party failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The appellants, investors in a failed real estate redevelopment project, appealed the dismissal of their claims for rescission and damages against the promoter, Shelter Corporation.

The trial judge found that Shelter breached numerous contractual commitments, causing the loss of the investment, but held that rescission was unavailable and no damages were proven because the project was too heavily leveraged to survive the market downturn.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the breaches were not fundamental and that the appellants had not proven substantial damages.

However, the Court allowed the appeal to the limited extent of awarding nominal damages of $1 to each appellant for the proven breaches of contract.

A cross-appeal by the financial institutions regarding equitable set-off and penalty interest rates was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claims against the vendor regarding a real estate transaction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellants had agreed to purchase the property subject to a lease, an option to purchase, and an encroachment noted on the sketch attached to the agreement of purchase and sale.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.