Margot Pomerleau

The applicant shareholder brought an application under the Business Corporations Act to compel the respondent corporation to produce audited financial statements and appoint an auditor.

The respondents agreed to the appointment but argued the audits should only cover 2020 to present, claiming earlier years were barred by estoppel and the Limitations Act.

The court held that the right to audited financial statements is a mandatory statutory right not subject to the Limitations Act, as it is not a 'claim' for injury or loss.

The court ordered the production of audited financial statements from 2013 to present.

The applicant hotel sought a declaration from the Superior Court of Justice that it was eligible for electricity rebates under the Ontario Rebate for Electricity Consumers Act 2016 and the Ontario Fair Hydro Plan Act.

The respondent local electricity distribution company brought a motion to stay the proceedings, arguing the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Energy Board.

The court granted the motion and stayed the application, finding that the substance of the dispute involved enforceable provisions under the Ontario Energy Board Act, granting the Board exclusive jurisdiction.

Following a trial where the plaintiff had mixed success on a construction lien claim and failed on a breach of trust claim, both parties sought costs.

The court found equal success on the lien action, as the plaintiff proved the value of his claims but the defendant established the lien was registered out of time, resulting in no costs for either party.

The defendant was awarded $10,000 in costs for successfully defending the meritless breach of trust claim.

Investors sued a chartered accountant and his consulting corporation alleging breach of fiduciary duty and negligence after losing money in complex domestic and offshore investment structures connected to an investment club and related entities.

The court found the advisor promoted the investments, failed to disclose commissions, and reassured the investors about the legitimacy of the structure despite serious regulatory concerns and structural deficiencies in the investment scheme.

The relationship involved trust, reliance, and vulnerability sufficient to create a fiduciary duty.

The advisor breached that duty by failing to disclose conflicts, failing to warn about regulatory issues, and misrepresenting the diligence performed.

Liability was imposed for the plaintiffs’ investment in the domestic issuer but not for later investments made after regulatory warnings, which the court held the plaintiffs unreasonably failed to mitigate.