Libby Nixon

The Quebec Plaintiffs and the Defendants brought motions for leave to appeal an order of Belobaba J. dated November 21, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal.

Costs of $2,500 were ordered payable by each of the moving parties to the responding Ontario Plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs in a Quebec class action and the defendants brought motions to stay a parallel Ontario class action alleging securities misrepresentations.

The moving parties argued the Ontario action was duplicative and an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the Ontario action was more comprehensive and not duplicative of the Quebec action when it was filed.

The court held that issues of preferability between parallel multi-jurisdictional class actions are better addressed at the certification stage rather than through a pre-certification stay motion for abuse of process.

AIMCO and CHC MPAR LP entered into a co-ownership agreement to develop a student housing project.

After the project faced zoning rejections, AIMCO and CHC independently acquired a neighbouring property without including MPAR, a 50% shareholder in the general partner.

AIMCO subsequently triggered a shotgun clause to buy out the limited partnership's interest.

MPAR opposed the buyout and applied for relief, alleging oppression, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract.

The court dismissed MPAR's application, finding no oppressive conduct, fiduciary duties, or contractual breaches, as the agreements explicitly excluded obligations regarding outside business opportunities.

AIMCO's application for specific performance of the shotgun clause was granted.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claims for conspiracy to injure and intentional interference with economic relations.

The plaintiff, former CEO of a company in receivership, alleged the defendants conspired to breach contracts to harm him personally.

The court struck the conspiracy claim because it failed to explain how the corporate defendant would agree to act against its own interests.

The court also struck the intentional interference claim because a prior release agreement meant the third-party company had no actionable civil wrong against the defendants.

Both claims were struck with leave to amend.