3 total
Motion for 21 hours of discovery dismissed; multiple defendants with identical interests limited to 9 hours.
The defendants moved to compel the plaintiff to complete his examination for discovery, arguing that as three separate defendants, they were entitled to 7 hours each for a total of 21 hours under Rule 31.05.1(1).
The plaintiff, who had already been examined for 5.3 hours, agreed to submit to a total of 9 hours.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that a mechanical application of the rule would be disproportionate because the defendants shared an identical interest, filed a joint defence, and were represented by one lawyer.
The court held that 9 hours was reasonably required and reserved costs of $3,500 to the trial judge.
Motion for leave to appeal granted with costs reserved to the appeal panel.
The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.
The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.
Shareholders cannot bypass derivative action leave requirements by framing corporate wrongs as personal oppression.
The respondent, Asif Qadar, successfully moved to dismiss an application brought by Jose Zepeda.
Qadar argued Zepeda lacked legal capacity and improperly sought corporate remedies in a personal capacity, circumventing derivative action requirements under the Business Corporations Act.
The court found that most of the relief sought by Zepeda, despite being framed as oppression, was properly for the corporation, not Zepeda personally.
Consequently, the application was dismissed due to procedural impropriety and Zepeda's lack of capacity to pursue corporate claims in a personal action.
