Robert Stellick

This case addresses a corporate deadlock within AnalytixInsight Inc. (ALY) between two factions of its board of directors, stemming from serious allegations of misconduct, including insider tipping, self-dealing, and material non-disclosure, against the former CEO and his allies.

The Applicant Faction sought an investigation under the Business Corporations Act (OBCA) and oppression remedy relief.

The court found a prima facie case of oppressive and dishonest conduct by the Respondent Faction, warranting immediate interim intervention.

An inspector was ordered to investigate the allegations, and the alleged wrongdoers were temporarily precluded from board participation, with an interim board appointed to ensure company functionality.

The respondents brought a medical malpractice action after the plaintiff suffered a severe brain injury from a cardiac arrest during a caesarean section.

The trial judge found the primary obstetrician (Dr. Padmore), the anesthesiologist (Dr. Jamensky), and the hospital liable for negligence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeals of Dr. Padmore and the hospital, finding the trial judge erred in his legal causation analysis regarding their respective pre-delivery acts and omissions.

The Court dismissed Dr. Jamensky's appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that he breached the standard of care by prematurely converting the patient to a general anesthetic and that this negligence caused the cardiac arrest.

Dr. Jamensky was held solely liable for the agreed $12 million in damages.

The defendants, including five John Doe police officers, brought a motion seeking a publication ban, sealing order, and pseudonym order to protect their identities in a civil action concerning the shooting death of Ejaz Choudry.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to meet the high evidentiary burden required to justify an exception to the open court principle.

The court emphasized the public interest in transparency and police accountability, particularly in cases involving state action and racialized communities, and found the evidence of risk to the officers' safety to be speculative.

The plaintiffs, who operate a specialized First Nations Specific Claims insurance business, brought a motion for an interlocutory and permanent injunction against former employees and independent contractors who started a competing brokerage.

The plaintiffs sought to prohibit the defendants from competing, soliciting clients, and using confidential information.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no non-competition or non-solicitation agreements existed, and the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the defendants misused proprietary information.

The court ordered the defendants to return and delete any of the plaintiffs' confidential information in their possession, as proposed by the defendants.

This appeal addressed the scope of the "immediate disclosure" rule for litigation-altering agreements, specifically a Pierringer agreement, as established in *Handley Estate*.

The appellant (non-settling defendants) sought to stay the action, arguing the respondent (plaintiff) failed to immediately disclose the agreement's terms.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the respondent's disclosure of the agreement's existence and essential terms, coupled with an immediate intent to seek court approval, satisfied the disclosure requirement.

The court clarified that not every term needs immediate disclosure, only those affecting the litigation landscape, and that the rationale for an abuse of process finding was not engaged where the court was informed and the disclosure was incremental within the context of seeking approval.

The moving party, a woodworking contractor, brought a motion under Rules 45.01 and 45.02 for an interim order preserving the proceeds of any sale of the responding party's residential condominium.

The moving party had previously proven its construction lien and was awarded costs and interest in a Master's report, which the responding party was moving to oppose.

The court found that Rule 45.01(1) applied because the report created a connection between the awarded costs and interest and the proceeds of the condominium's sale, and there was evidence the responding party was attempting to sell the unit without notifying his counsel.

The court ordered that $220,000 from any sale proceeds be paid into court pending the final determination of the motion opposing confirmation of the report.

In the context of a shareholder proxy fight, the applicants sought an order declaring the dissident shareholders' proxy circulars materially misleading and invalidating their proxies.

The dissident shareholders brought a motion seeking to hold the upcoming shareholders meeting virtually and to appoint an independent chair.

The court dismissed the application, finding the circulars were not materially misleading.

The court allowed the motion in part, refusing to mandate a purely virtual meeting but appointing the dissidents' proposed independent chair after finding the applicants deliberately breached a prior court order by unilaterally appointing their own chair.