Michael James Patrick Darcy

The appellants appealed an urgent Commercial Court order that set a date for a requisitioned shareholder meeting, appointed an independent chair, and restrained directors opposing the requisition from voting shares issued to them after the requisition date.

The appellants argued the application judge failed to make an explicit finding of impropriety regarding the share issuance and failed to apply the business judgment rule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge's reasons were sufficient when read in context, as they clearly demonstrated concern that the shares were issued to dilute the requisitioning shareholders' voting power.

The court also held the application judge properly declined to apply the business judgment rule, as the directors' actions were not in the best interests of the company.

The plaintiffs brought an action to rescind a settlement agreement, alleging the defendant fraudulently inflated the company's revenue prior to the plaintiff purchasing the defendant's shares.

The defendants moved to strike the action as an abuse of process based on a full and final release signed during the settlement.

The plaintiffs moved for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from enforcing the settlement agreement's default provisions.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud that was not contemplated by the release.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, finding the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if the defendant returned to the business.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against the developers of a cancelled pre-construction condominium project, alleging breach of contract and bad faith in invoking an early termination condition.

Following a settlement meeting and document review, the parties agreed to a without-costs discontinuance.

The court approved the consent motion to discontinue the action under section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding that the discontinuance would not prejudice the putative class members, who had not yet been notified of the proceeding and could still pursue individual claims before the expiry of the limitation period.

The appellants, general partners in three limited partnerships, appealed an application judge's order requiring them to produce information to the respondent limited partners and to include specific material in annual and semi-annual reports.

The appellants argued procedural unfairness and that the order exceeded the limited partnership agreements (LPA).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness as the appellants had ample notice, and that the order was consistent with the broad information rights of limited partners under section 10 of the Limited Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

L.16, and did not prejudice the appellants.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that found their professional negligence action was not statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the respondent neither knew nor ought to have known that its loss was caused by the appellants' acts or omissions.

The moving parties sought to quash an appeal of an application judge's order that had granted their application under the Limited Partnerships Act to compel the responding parties to provide financial information.

The moving parties argued the order was interlocutory and therefore not appealable.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge's order was final, as it brought the application to an end and finally determined the moving parties' entitlement to financial information.

The motion to quash was dismissed with costs.

The applicant brought an application under the Solicitors Act for an order directing the assessment of the accounts of her former law firm.

The applicant had paid the final bill and brought the application more than one month after its delivery, requiring her to establish special circumstances.

The court found that special circumstances existed, noting the applicant's lack of sophistication in litigation, the large amount of the accounts, her expressions of concern regarding the bills, and her reasonable belief that she had to pay the accounts for her file to be transferred.

The application was granted and the accounts were ordered to be assessed.

The Requestor, an Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) claimant, sought directions regarding Canada's alleged non-compliance with a prior disclosure order concerning documents related to St. Anne's Indian Residential School.

Specifically, the Requestor alleged Canada failed to produce examination for discovery transcripts from civil proceedings.

The court directed the parties to provide written submissions to determine whether Canada had complied with the January 14, 2014 order, finding that no further affidavit evidence was required at this stage given the narrow factual dispute.