Martine S.W. Garland

A shareholder oppression trial arising from the breakdown of an informal business relationship involving a used car dealership and related real estate ventures.

The court held there was no binding settlement agreement for the wind-up of the dealership because the relied-on email was at most an agreement to agree and lacked acceptance on essential terms.

The court found oppressive conduct where the controlling parties failed to maintain adequate financial records, charged personal expenses to the corporation, and used a related sole proprietorship as an unjustified intermediary that diverted profits from the corporation.

Damages of $292,000 were awarded for oppression, and the remaining certificate of pending litigation was found to have been improperly registered, with any resulting damages to be determined on reference if necessary.

The appellant, a former medical resident, appealed an order striking her conspiracy claim against two individual defendants as time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in applying the presumption of knowledge under s. 5(2) of the Act before the issue of discoverability was properly developed in the pleadings.

The Court held that a limitation defence should generally be pleaded in a statement of defence, allowing the plaintiff to reply with facts regarding discoverability, rather than being determined on a motion to strike prior to the filing of a defence.

Following the defendant's successful motion for summary judgment, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The defendant sought approximately $331,500 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, relying on a favourable offer to settle.

The plaintiff argued for $210,000.

The court found the matter complex but noted excessive hourly rates for junior counsel and insufficient delegation.

Costs were fixed at $240,000 all-inclusive.

Competing motions arose regarding funding the care of an incapable elderly woman under the Substitute Decisions Act.

One child sought to increase a line of credit secured against the incapable person’s Toronto condominium to fund ongoing care, while other siblings sought an order to sell a Florida condominium allegedly jointly owned with one sibling.

The court held that the urgent need to maintain care justified extending the line of credit, while disputes concerning ownership, expenses, occupation rent, and tax consequences relating to the Florida property required further evidentiary determination.

A bifurcated hearing was ordered to resolve those issues before determining whether the Florida property should be sold.

The moving parties, a group of affiliated companies, sought leave to appeal a judgment setting aside an ex parte CCAA Initial Order.

The respondents, creditors of a Singapore subsidiary, successfully argued before the application judge that the CCAA court lacked jurisdiction over the subsidiary.

A single judge of the Court of Appeal held he had jurisdiction to hear the leave motion but refused leave, finding no error in the application judge's conclusion that the real debtors were Singapore companies with little connection to Canada and that the evidence did not support the initial ex parte findings of insolvency and intertwined finances.