Jessica Roher

The applicant, E. Automotive Inc., sought to unwind a transaction under section 248 of the Business Corporations Act, RSO 1990, c B.16, after its shareholding in Autocorp.

AI.

Inc. was diluted below 33 1/3% through the issuance of shares to Blossom Street Ventures.

The court found that E. Automotive Inc. did not have a reasonably held expectation that its shareholding would not be diluted below a certain threshold, nor that shares would not be issued below market value for the purpose of affecting a vote.

The application was dismissed.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against a registered practical nurse for sexually abusing a vulnerable psychiatric patient.

The member admitted to exchanging sexual messages, masturbating on videochat, touching the patient sexually, and accessing her personal health information without consent.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, reimbursement for patient therapy, and the mandatory revocation of the member's certificate of registration.

The respondents moved to quash an application for judicial review brought by Ontario Place for All Inc. regarding the redevelopment of Ontario Place's West Island.

The respondents argued that the newly enacted Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, 2023 exempted the project from the Environmental Assessment Act, making the application moot or bound to fail.

The single judge of the Divisional Court declined to quash the application, finding that the issues raised significant public law concerns regarding governance and environmental protection that warranted consideration by a full panel of the Divisional Court.

The Plaintiff church sought to enforce and clarify an interim injunction against the Defendant, a former minister, and his followers who were disrupting worship services with noise and gatherings directly outside the church property.

An earlier interim order was deemed too vague by police.

The court, at a case conference, issued a new, more specific order defining the permissible distance for the defendant's group during the church's worship hours, balancing freedom of expression with freedom of worship.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim in a wrongful dismissal action.

The impugned paragraphs alleged director liability for unpaid wages and oppression, as well as health and safety violations by the corporate defendants.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead the necessary material facts to establish director liability under the OBCA and ESA, and that the health and safety allegations improperly pleaded evidence rather than material facts.

The motion to strike was granted, but the plaintiff was granted leave to amend the claim.