3 total
Respondent ordered to disgorge $2.2 million in profits for oppression and breach of fiduciary duties.
The applicant, founder of a carpentry business, sought an oppression remedy against the respondent, the younger active manager and 49% shareholder.
The parties had entered into a unanimous shareholders' agreement to transition the business to the respondent while completing existing projects.
The respondent breached the agreement and his fiduciary duties by usurping the company's employees for his new competing business, failing to maintain proper financial records, and causing the original company to fail.
The court found the respondent liable for oppression and ordered him and his new company to jointly and severally disgorge $2,248,328 in profits.
Appeal of solicitor account assessment dismissed; judge's muting of disruptive self-represented litigant during virtual hearing upheld.
The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their appeal of a solicitor's account assessment.
They argued the appeal judge denied them procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment, muting one of the appellants during a virtual hearing, and proceeding without full transcripts.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the judge properly exercised his discretion to refuse the adjournment and to control the court's process by muting a disruptive litigant.
The court also upheld the assessment officer's findings and the award of substantial indemnity costs against the appellants.
Motion to quash appeal granted; Tribunal's evidentiary ruling was interlocutory and not subject to appeal.
The Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal of a Capital Markets Tribunal decision on the basis of prematurity.
The Tribunal had previously ruled that the Wagg process did not apply to documents the OSC obtained through its own investigation and intended to use in a merits hearing.
The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the Tribunal's evidentiary ruling was an interlocutory decision, not a final decision, and therefore no appeal was permitted under s. 10(1) of the Securities Act.
