Rupinder Preet Minhas

The parties, 50% shareholders in a trucking business, reached an impasse.

The applicant sought orders to operate the business and prepare tax filings, while the respondent moved for an interim injunction to freeze the business assets.

The court dismissed the respondent's injunction motion, finding he failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured allowing the applicant to generate revenue to pay corporate debts.

The court granted the applicant's motion, permitting him to operate the business exclusively for six months, open a corporate bank account, and ordering both parties to provide financial records to an accounting professional to address unfiled tax returns.

The plaintiff, Sayed Hoq, brought a motion to correct the names of "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" defendants to Lakhwant Singh and CWH Distribution Services Inc. o/a CW Henderson Distribution, respectively, in a multi-vehicle automobile accident claim.

The motion was brought under Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for correction of incorrectly named parties if there is no non-compensable prejudice.

The court applied the "litigation finger" test, finding the original pleading sufficiently particular for the proposed defendants to know they were the intended targets.

Despite a six-year delay, the court found no non-compensable prejudice, dismissing arguments regarding lost records as speculative and not prejudicial to the defendants.

The motion to correct names was granted.

At a civil case conference requested by the defendant, counsel sought substantive orders regarding unanswered correspondence, undertakings, and a WAGG motion.

The court declined to make the requested orders, emphasizing that case conferences are for procedural matters and timetabling, not for obtaining substantive relief or enforcing civility between counsel.

The court directed the parties to bring formal motions if substantive relief was required.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for substituted service on a defendant driver who could not be located following a motor vehicle accident.

Despite extensive efforts by process servers, the defendant's whereabouts remained unknown.

The court found that substituted service at the defendant's last known address was inappropriate because the documents were unlikely to come to his attention.

However, the court ordered that service be dispensed with and deemed the defendant noted in default.