Sarah Lag

The applicant, E. Automotive Inc., sought to unwind a transaction under section 248 of the Business Corporations Act, RSO 1990, c B.16, after its shareholding in Autocorp.

AI.

Inc. was diluted below 33 1/3% through the issuance of shares to Blossom Street Ventures.

The court found that E. Automotive Inc. did not have a reasonably held expectation that its shareholding would not be diluted below a certain threshold, nor that shares would not be issued below market value for the purpose of affecting a vote.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Aenos Food Services Inc., brought a motion seeking particulars of the defendants' (Emily Tierney and Tierney Stauffer LLP) Statement of Defence in a solicitor's negligence action governed by simplified procedure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the particulars sought were within the plaintiff's knowledge, the defence already contained sufficient material facts, and the request was an attempt to elicit evidence prior to discovery, which is contrary to the principles of simplified procedure.

The court emphasized that particulars are to clarify pleadings, not to serve as a substitute for discovery, and that such motions contribute to delays and costs, undermining access to justice in Rule 76 actions.

This endorsement addresses three motions: the applicant's motion to strike portions of the respondent's affidavit, the respondent's cross-motion to strike portions of the applicant's affidavit and exhibits, and the applicant's motion to compel answers refused during cross-examination.

The applicant, a former director of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA), challenged his disqualification as a board candidate and sought corporate documents related to CIRA's financial affairs, including employee severance packages.

The court dismissed both parties' motions to strike, affirming that preliminary motions to strike on evidentiary grounds are generally inappropriate and admissibility should be left to the application judge.

The applicant's motion to compel answers was allowed in part, compelling answers related to the bona fides of his document request and board briefings on financial settlements, but upholding refusals on questions concerning the merits of whistleblower allegations or legal opinions.

Success was deemed evenly divided, with no order as to costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel documentary production and address refusals and undertakings from the defendants, including the corporate defendant AF Global Asset Management Inc. The litigation concerned a significant investment in a Brazilian real estate development, with allegations of misrepresentation, misappropriation of funds, and inadequate record-keeping.

The court considered the scope of relevance, proportionality, and practicality of discovery, particularly regarding electronic financial records.

The motion was largely granted, with specific orders for the production of financial documents, fulfillment of undertakings, and the corporate defendant to produce a representative for discovery.