Ronald S. Sleightholm

The appellant worked on his family's dairy farm for 24 years, alleging an oral agreement with his parents that he would receive the farm property and assets when they stopped farming.

After his father died without transferring the farm or changing his will, the appellant brought an action for a declaration of beneficial entitlement.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no oral agreement due to the lack of signed documents and rejecting the application of the doctrine of part performance.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by requiring written documents for an oral agreement and by incorrectly applying the doctrine of part performance.

A new trial was ordered on all issues.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claims for oppression, breach of good faith, and misrepresentation regarding the cost base of certain shares.

The appellants alleged they were not informed that shares were acquired on a tax-deferred basis.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the cost base was specifically listed in the circular, which the individual appellant had approved as a director and CFO.

The appeal was dismissed as entirely without merit, with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim that the respondent's actions caused a corporation to lose its business and deprived him of management fees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the corporation was placed in liquidation by consent court order, which required its replacement as general partner.

The loss of business was occasioned by the consent liquidation, not by any actions of the respondent.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their oppression claim against the respondents.

The claim was based on the respondent's refusal to appoint the individual appellant as a co-director of a corporation when he sought to exercise an option to re-acquire shares.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant had no statutory, contractual, or tort-based entitlement to a directorship.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.