R. Bruce Nelson

The applicants, minority shareholders in a family-owned wholesale grocery business, brought an oppression application against the majority shareholders and the company.

The dispute arose over succession planning, with the majority seeking to sell the company's assets to a third-generation family member, which the applicants opposed.

The court found that while the applicants did not have a reasonable expectation of passing their shares to their sons, the proposed asset sale and certain workplace actions were oppressive.

The court ordered the sale of the applicants' shares at fair market value to the proposed purchaser or the company.

Following the dismissal of the defendant condominium corporation's motion for leave to appeal an order allowing the plaintiff to amend her statement of claim, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff relied on an offer to settle and the financial disparity between the parties.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs in the global amount of $7,000, noting that her offer to settle was reasonable and that the financial disparity between the parties could be considered under Rule 57.01(1)(i).

The defendant condominium corporation sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order permitting the plaintiff to amend a statement of claim to include additional water infiltration incidents and claims for breaches of statutory duties and oppression under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The moving party argued the amendments conflicted with authority requiring condominium disputes to proceed through mediation and arbitration under s. 132(4) of the Act.

The court held that the alleged conflicting authority concerned different legal principles and factual circumstances, and therefore did not satisfy the leave test under Rule 62.02(4)(a).

The court also found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge’s decision and concluded that oppression claims under s. 135 and certain statutory breach claims are not necessarily subject to the mandatory mediation and arbitration provisions.

Leave to appeal was refused.

Following a motion in which the plaintiff obtained an amendment to pleadings, the court considered written submissions on the issue of costs.

The court determined that although the plaintiff was successful on the amendment motion, the timing of the motion weighed against awarding costs.

Referring to reasons given in the earlier endorsement, the court concluded that the circumstances did not justify a costs award.

Accordingly, the court ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend the statement of claim in an action against a condominium corporation arising from water infiltration into a condominium unit.

The proposed amendments expanded the claim from a single water event to ongoing infiltration issues and added claims for breach of fiduciary duty and oppression under the Condominium Act.

The defendant opposed the amendments on limitation, pleading sufficiency, and abuse of process grounds.

The court applied Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and held that any prejudice could be compensated through costs or adjournment.

Leave to amend was granted, with terms allowing the defendant to file a fresh defence and conduct further discovery.

In estate litigation concerning whether $1.3 million transferred by a deceased to the defendant was a loan or gift, the defendants sought costs related to steps taken to remove the plaintiffs’ original counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest arising from counsel’s participation in discussions with the deceased before death.

The court held that the defendant was entitled to costs because the plaintiffs ultimately conceded the removal of counsel after significant preparation had already been undertaken.

However, the court found the circumstances did not justify substantial indemnity costs, emphasizing that no party’s conduct was reprehensible and that the motion itself would not have been complex.

Costs were therefore awarded on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The court also directed that the defendant’s request for leave to bring a late dependant’s relief claim under the Succession Law Reform Act should be determined at trial rather than through a separate pretrial motion.