2 total
Application granted to rectify corporate share exchange documents to correct a drafting error.
The applicants sought to rectify a share exchange agreement and related documents that contained a drafting error regarding the number of shares to be issued.
The error had adverse tax consequences.
The Attorney General did not oppose the application.
The court applied the four-part test for rectification from Fairmont, finding that the parties had a clear prior agreement, the agreement was still effective, the documents failed to record it accurately, and the proposed rectification would carry out the agreement.
The court distinguished the recent Supreme Court decision in Collins, noting this was not retroactive tax planning but correcting an erroneous transcription.
The application was granted.
Motion to compel discovery granted; relevant credit agreement ordered produced with limited redactions for commercial sensitivity.
The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals given during an examination for discovery, specifically seeking unredacted copies of a credit agreement, its amendments, and calendar appointments in native format.
The court found that the credit agreement and its amendments were captured by the discovery requests and were relevant to the pleadings.
The court ordered production of the agreements but permitted limited redactions for irrelevant and commercially sensitive information, rejecting the defendants' broad redactions.
The court also ordered the production of calendar appointments in native format as impliedly required by the parties' discovery plan.
