Dace Anna Kuze

The defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim, Viola, brought a motion to compel the plaintiff/defendant to counterclaim, Alexandre (represented by Sach), to re-attend cross-examination to answer nine specific questions and follow-up questions.

The questions were initially refused and later answered in writing, but not under oath or in accordance with a prior court order.

The court granted the motion, finding that while re-attendance is not an absolute right, it was reasonable and just given the circumstances, particularly the failure to comply with a previous order regarding the conduct of cross-examinations and the lack of sworn testimony.

The court also awarded Viola $1,500 in costs.

The applicant corporation, undergoing liquidation, brought a motion for directions regarding the distribution of assets attributable to shareholders whose whereabouts were unknown.

The applicant proposed transferring the undistributed funds to a related cultural organization to hold in trust, or alternatively to the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The Public Guardian and Trustee opposed the proposal and argued that the funds should be delivered pursuant to s. 268(1) of the Corporations Act.

The court held that the statutory scheme under the Corporations Act operates as the default mechanism for handling distributions to unlocated shareholders and maximizes their opportunity to claim their entitlements.

The court directed that the funds be delivered to the Public Guardian and Trustee to be held in trust in accordance with the statutory provisions.