Philip Anisman

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, which alleged oppression and breach of good faith by the individual directors and officers in relation to a share purchase agreement.

The defendants argued the plaintiff lacked standing as the conduct occurred before it became a shareholder, and that insufficient facts were pleaded to attract personal liability.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the plaintiff had standing as a beneficial shareholder and that the pleadings sufficiently alleged the defendants' personal involvement and benefit.

The court also granted the plaintiff's motion to consolidate the action with a related proceeding against the corporate defendants.

Judgment creditors of a bankrupt company obtained an assignment of the company's claim against its former director for breach of fiduciary duties and failure to supervise.

The creditors commenced an action against the director more than two years after the company's liability was established by judgment.

The central issue was whether the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that while the creditors lacked capacity to sue in the company's name until after bankruptcy, the company itself had discovered the claim when its shareholders received the trial judgment establishing the director's wrongdoing.

The limitation period ran from that earlier date, making the action time-barred.

The plaintiffs (Ridels) brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant (Goldberg), relying on findings from a prior action against e3m Investments Inc. and Mr. Cassin.

Goldberg brought a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing the Ridels' claim was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court dismissed the Ridels' motion, finding that Justice Pepall's prior findings against e3m did not translate into personal liability for Goldberg, and that Goldberg was not a "privy" to e3m in a way that would bind him.

The court granted Goldberg's motion, finding that the Ridels' action was commenced outside the two-year limitation period, as both the Ridels and e3m (as predecessor) had discovered the claim much earlier than the action's commencement date.

The court rejected the argument that the limitation period was suspended pending the outcome of an appeal in the prior action.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their action as barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellants had obtained a trial judgment against e3m Investments Inc. more than two years prior, but commenced an action against the respondent (e3m's president and sole director) within two years of e3m's appeal dismissal and subsequent bankruptcy.

The appellants obtained an assignment of the trustee's cause of action under section 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Court of Appeal found that the limitation issue involved mixed questions of fact and law that could not be properly determined on a Rule 21.01(1)(a) motion with only pleadings on the record, and allowed the appeal.

Judgment creditors appealed under s. 81 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act from a trustee’s disallowance of their proof of claim asserting that funds in a segregated “Accumulating Account” were held in trust for their benefit.

The account had been created pursuant to terms imposed by the Ontario Securities Commission requiring the bankrupt investment dealer to accumulate assets sufficient to satisfy a judgment while an appeal was pending.

The appellants argued the regulatory arrangements and segregation of funds established the three certainties necessary to form a trust.

The court held that the regulatory conditions were intended to preserve assets pending resolution of the judgment rather than to create a trust conferring beneficial ownership on the judgment creditors.

As certainty of intention to create a trust was not established, the funds formed part of the bankrupt estate.

The plaintiffs sued their investment advisor and his firm for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from the handling of their investment accounts.

The court found that the advisor failed to comply with the 'know your client' rule, engaged in unsuitable short-term trading, and exercised unauthorized discretion, while the firm failed to properly supervise the accounts.

Although no fiduciary duty was owed to the more knowledgeable husband, fiduciary duties were owed to and breached regarding the wife and son.

The court rejected defenses of ratification and limitation periods (except for a late-added tax claim) due to the plaintiffs' lack of knowledge of the misconduct.

Damages were awarded for capital and opportunity losses, reduced by 30% for the plaintiffs' contributory negligence.