S. Laubman

The defendants (former clients) brought a motion for an assessment of their former law firm's accounts under the Solicitors Act and to stay the law firm's action for unpaid fees.

The law firm argued the request was out of time as it was made more than 30 days after the last account.

The court found that the accounts rendered were interim, not final, and the limitation period had not begun to run.

Alternatively, the court found special circumstances justified an assessment.

The law firm's action for unpaid fees was stayed pending the outcome of the assessment.

In the context of an ongoing shareholder dispute and oppression proceedings concerning car dealerships, the parties jointly sought directions on the appropriate sales process to separate the dealership operations from the litigation in order to preserve value.

One group of shareholders proposed an asset sale of the dealerships, while the other proposed a share sale.

The court considered the impending deadline imposed by the common lender, which had threatened to enforce its security if the dealerships were not separated from the dispute by a fixed date.

Given the urgency and the practical realities of completing a transaction quickly, the court held that a share sale was the most efficient and time-sensitive method to effect the separation.

The court therefore approved the proposed share-sale process.

In the context of an ongoing shareholder dispute and oppression proceedings concerning car dealerships, the parties jointly sought directions on the appropriate sales process to separate the dealership operations from the litigation in order to preserve value.

One group of shareholders proposed an asset sale of the dealerships, while the other proposed a share sale.

The court considered the impending deadline imposed by the common lender, which had threatened to enforce its security if the dealerships were not separated from the dispute by a fixed date.

Given the urgency and the practical realities of completing a transaction quickly, the court held that a share sale was the most efficient and time-sensitive method to effect the separation.

The court therefore approved the proposed share-sale process.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action arising from a shotgun buy-sell offer in a partnership dispute.

The plaintiffs claimed the offer was invalid, and alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and oppression.

The court found that the shotgun buy-sell offer was valid and complied with the partnership agreement.

The court also dismissed the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and oppression, finding that the defendants were entitled to exercise their contractual rights.

However, the court directed a trial on three specific breach of contract issues relating to closing arrangements and the calculation of net earnings.