The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against the respondents.
The dispute arose from the exercise of a shotgun buy/sell provision in a unanimous shareholders' agreement.
The appellant alleged breach of fiduciary duty, theft of corporate opportunity, and other claims after learning the respondent financed the buyout by agreeing to transfer corporate properties to a lender.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge applied the correct summary judgment test and correctly concluded that no fiduciary duty exists between shareholders exercising a shotgun provision, nor was there any appropriation of a corporate opportunity.