3 total
Motion for interim costs in oppression application dismissed due to insufficient evidence of applicant's financial circumstances.
The applicant, a 50% shareholder in two family-owned corporations, brought a motion for interim costs to fund an oppression application against her former spouse and the corporations.
The court applied the two-part test from Alles v. Maurice under s. 249(4) of the OBCA.
While the court found the applicant had established a case of sufficient merit based on the respondents' failure to provide financial statements, the motion was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of her financial circumstances to prove that pursuing the claim would unreasonably reduce her standard of living.
Co-owner ordered to reimburse property taxes and severance costs, adjusted for improvements made by the applicant.
The parties are joint owners of a property that was severed into two lots by a consent order.
The applicant, who had paid all property taxes and severance costs, sought reimbursement from the respondent.
The court ordered the respondent to reimburse 50% of the property taxes paid prior to 2006, but reduced her obligation to 13.3% for subsequent years because the applicant had built a house and garage that increased the property's assessed value.
The court also ordered the respondent to pay 50% of the severance costs and ordered the applicant to pay $9,917 to compensate the respondent for receiving a smaller lot, calculated by splitting the difference between the parties' competing appraisals.
Missed contractual deadline did not extinguish arbitration right in share purchase dispute.
The purchaser under a share purchase agreement brought an application seeking appointment of an arbitrator to determine a purchase price adjustment relating to working capital.
The vendors argued that the purchaser’s failure to deliver financial statements within a 40‑business‑day contractual deadline extinguished the right to arbitration and sought a stay pending a separate action alleging breach of contract and bad faith.
The court held that the agreement demonstrated a clear intention that disputes concerning price adjustment be resolved through arbitration and that the missed deadline did not terminate the contractual right to arbitrate.
The court also rejected arguments that allegations of bad faith, the involvement of escrow agents, or concerns about multiplicity of proceedings justified avoiding arbitration.
An arbitrator was appointed and the cross‑application was dismissed.
