Megan E. Shortreed

This decision concerns an application by Dr. Kelly Diane Riedel regarding the validity and administration of the Dmyant Sangha Family Trust and the Sangha Property Trust.

Dr. Riedel alleges that the trusts are shams, created to defeat her family law entitlements, and seeks various forms of relief including the production of legal records and the conversion of the application to an action.

The court addresses the legal standards for sham trusts, the relevance of disputed facts, and the entitlement to privileged documents.

The application to convert to an action is dismissed, and the court sets out a process for determining threshold questions regarding the validity of the trusts.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's order dismissing the appellants' motion for summary judgment and declaring that the respondents' action was commenced within the limitation period.

The appellants argued the claim was discovered earlier, based on a 2015 telephone conversation and a 2005 memorandum concerning tax consequences of a trust.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in her application of the relevant statutory provisions and caselaw, particularly Grant Thornton LLP v. New Brunswick.

The court agreed that the information known to the respondents' lawyer was insufficient to ground a plausible inference of liability without expert advice, thus the limitation period began later, making the action not time-barred.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, arguing that the plaintiffs' former lawyer had sufficient knowledge of the potential claim more than two years before the action was commenced.

The plaintiffs contended that the information available to their lawyer was insufficient to trigger the limitation period, requiring further expert investigation.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the information known to the plaintiffs' lawyer was merely a suspicion and not enough to establish a plausible inference of liability, especially given the complex technical nature of the tax issue and conflicting professional opinions.

The limitation period was held to have commenced either when further due diligence was decided upon (February 22, 2016) or when a comprehensive expert opinion was provided (February 24, 2017), both dates being within the two-year period.

The plaintiff, CryptoStar Corp., sought an interim order for the preservation of specific funds (Upfront Payments) or assets purchased with them, and a declaration of interest in property to facilitate a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) in Alberta.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Upfront Payments did not constitute a "specific fund" under Rule 45.02 as they were co-mingled and not contractually segregated.

The court also found no serious issue to be tried regarding the refund claim under the Agreement's terms and no basis for a CPL as the plaintiff failed to establish an interest in land.

The Estate Trustees of Allen Berg's estate sought court direction to determine the beneficial ownership of a cottage property.

Legal title was held by Melamel Properties Inc., whose shares were owned by the estate.

Judith Berg, the deceased's widow, claimed the entire beneficial interest or a 50% interest.

The court found that the deceased had created an express trust, holding the property for himself and Judith Berg as equal tenants in common.

The deceased's subsequent attempt to transfer the property solely to Melamel Properties Inc. for his exclusive benefit was deemed ineffective due to misstatements and breach of fiduciary duty, as Judith Berg's beneficial interest could not be unilaterally divested.

The court vested an undivided one-half interest in Judith Berg personally and an undivided one-half interest in the Estate of Allen Berg as tenants in common.

The applicants, minority co-owners of two commercial properties, sought relief from alleged oppressive conduct, breach of trust, and breach of fiduciary duty by the majority co-owners and property managers following a cash call.

The court found that the respondents' failure to provide timely and meaningful access to financial records unfairly disregarded and prejudiced the applicants' interests under section 248 of the Business Corporations Act.

However, the court dismissed claims regarding management fees, financing, and conflicts of interest, and found no breach of trust or fiduciary duty.

The court ordered specific terms for future financial disclosure and governance but declined to order a forced buy-out of the applicants' interests.

Costs for the disclosure motion were awarded to the applicants on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Liquidator of Maple Bank GmbH's Canadian business sought an interim distribution of surplus funds to the German Insolvency Administrator (GIA) during winding-up proceedings.

The motion was unopposed.

The court approved the interim distribution, finding it appropriate given that adequate reserves were established to cover all proven and potential claims, ensuring no prejudice to Canadian creditors.

The court emphasized a broad, flexible interpretation of insolvency legislation and the policy of assisting foreign insolvency proceedings.

The court heard two motions: the defendants sought further production of documents, and the plaintiffs sought an order for the defendants to attend examinations for discovery.

The court granted some of the defendants' production requests, ordering the plaintiffs to produce unredacted financial statements and to request files from their auditors (PWC) and an accounting firm (HLB).

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for discovery attendance, finding that the defendants had acted reasonably in not attending previously scheduled examinations due to the plaintiffs' incomplete production.

The court emphasized the relevance and proportionality rules for production, stating that if a document contains relevant information, it must be disclosed in its entirety without redaction.