3 total
The court struck a plaintiff's statement of claim regarding a cryptocurrency loan because it was based on fictionalized facts rather than the actual internet contract.
The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, which pleaded thirteen causes of action arising from an internet contract for bitcoin investment.
The court found the Statement of Claim to be based on fictionalized facts from the plaintiff's memory rather than the actual contract.
The court struck the Statement of Claim with leave to amend, but specifically struck claims against individual directors, conversion, breach of the Competition Act, and intentional infliction of mental distress without leave to amend.
The claim for breach of Colombian law was struck with leave to amend to properly plead foreign law.
Oppression application converted to an action due to material factual disputes and need for expert evidence.
The applicant sought remedies under the oppression provisions of the Business Corporations Act, alleging the respondent operated their jointly owned bubble tea franchise corporations in an oppressive manner.
The applicant claimed she was excluded from management, denied financial information, and that the respondent misappropriated business opportunities.
The respondent denied the allegations and alternatively sought an order for the sale of the applicant's shares without a finding of oppression.
The court found numerous material facts in dispute, credibility issues, and a need for expert evidence regarding management fees and residency status.
Consequently, the court ordered the issues raised in the application to proceed to trial and declined to order a sale of shares on the current record.
Small Claims Court appeal dismissed; architect entitled to fees for extra work despite project delays.
The appellant hired the respondent architect to design and obtain permits for converting a rooming house into a small hotel.
The project was delayed due to additional work requested by the appellant and city requirements.
The appellant sued in Small Claims Court for renovation expenses allegedly caused by the delay, while the respondent counterclaimed for unpaid fees and extra work.
The Deputy Judge dismissed the appellant's claim and allowed the respondent's counterclaim.
On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's findings that the delay was justified and the extra work was compensable.
The appeal was dismissed.
