Pavel Malysheuski

The applicants brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against former directors of a religious corporation who continued to act as directors and authorized significant payments after a consent court order replaced them.

The court found the respondents knowingly acted contrary to the order by signing cheques and authorizing approximately $135,000 in corporate disbursements after they were no longer directors, including payments after an additional order expressly prohibiting removal of funds.

Applying the established three-part test for civil contempt, the court held the order was clear, the conduct deliberate, and the breach proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court declined to order repayment of the funds due to practical enforcement and litigation considerations but imposed penalties and costs.

In an ongoing governance dispute concerning a Gurdwara, the case management judge issued directions regarding multiple related proceedings.

The court granted the current board of directors leave to commence an action against former directors for costs previously paid to a law firm, and permitted a third-party claim against the law firm.

The court also stayed a related small claims action and a costs assessment proceeding pending a peremptory case management conference to determine how all related matters should be adjudicated.

In a case management endorsement concerning governance disputes over a Gurdwara, the court granted leave for the corporation to commence an action against former directors for costs paid to a law firm, and for the former directors to bring a third-party claim against the law firm.

The court also stayed related small claims and costs assessment proceedings pending a further case management conference to determine whether the court should assume case management responsibility over all related matters.

Members of a religious community incorporated under the Corporations Act disputed control of the corporation administering their temple.

After a consent order established a three-person board, the applicants sought recognition of two additional directors allegedly appointed by the community's spiritual leader and invalidation of steps taken by the existing board.

The court held that the evidence of the alleged appointments was inadmissible and unreliable hearsay, and in any event the consent order circumscribed any authority to appoint additional directors pending an annual members meeting.

The application was dismissed, and the matter was directed into case management with related proceedings.

Members of a religious corporation brought motions relating to governance disputes within the corporation.

The court considered applications to intervene, the validity of a consent order appointing corporate directors following a mediation process before another judge, alleged breaches of that order, and related procedural matters.

The respondents argued that the consent order appointing directors should be set aside on grounds including lack of a condition precedent and alleged illegality under the Corporations Act.

The court rejected those arguments, holding that the consent order was valid and final, having been agreed to by all parties through counsel and approved through the agreed process.

Injunctive relief was granted restraining certain respondents from interfering with the corporation’s governance and requiring the turnover of corporate property and documents.

The respondent insurer sought its legal expenses following the dismissal of the appellant estate's appeal regarding statutory accident benefits.

The Director's Delegate extended the time to request an expense hearing, finding the delay reasonable pending a judicial review application.

The Delegate awarded costs to the respondent, noting it was completely successful and the appeal lacked merit, as the estate had no standing to claim the benefits.

The Delegate ordered the appellant's counsel to personally pay the respondent's costs, fixed at $5,755.84, finding that counsel caused expenses to be incurred without reasonable cause by pursuing the appeal instead of commencing a new application in the proper party's name.

The Executive Director of the Ontario Securities Commission applied under s. 144 of the Securities Act to vary or revoke a prior Commission decision that required notice be given to two corporate account holders of a bank before disclosing compelled documents to a foreign regulator.

Staff also sought a sealing order for fresh evidence without disclosing it to the bank.

The Commission granted the sealing order but required confidential disclosure to the bank's counsel to ensure procedural fairness.

The Commission dismissed the s. 144 application, finding that Staff was improperly using the provision as an appeal mechanism, which is contrary to the legislative intent of the Act and the public interest.