S. Robinson

The applicant brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed.

The total delay was 36 months and eight days.

The court deducted three months and 18 days for defence-caused delay, and three months and four days as a discrete exceptional event due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court declined to deduct delay caused by federal agencies vetting disclosure.

The remaining net delay was 29.5 months, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for superior courts.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff mortgagor defaulted on a development loan, leading the defendant mortgagee to sell the subject property under a power of sale.

The plaintiff brought an action alleging the sale was improvident and that the property was sold at a grossly undervalued price to a pre-selected purchaser.

The court reviewed the marketing efforts, which included obtaining multiple independent appraisals and hiring a specialized commercial real estate broker.

The court found that the defendant took reasonable precautions to obtain the true market value of the property and that the plaintiff failed to prove a higher price could have been obtained.

The action was dismissed with costs fixed at $330,000.

The Crown brought a motion under s. 752.1(1) of the Criminal Code for an order remanding the offender for an assessment by a designated expert, Dr. Philip Klassen, for a dangerous offender application.

The offender consented to the assessment but requested that Dr. Paul Fedoroff conduct it instead.

The court held that while the defence may make submissions, the Crown is generally entitled to choose the assessor if the proposed candidate is qualified and available.

The court designated Dr. Klassen, noting concerns that Dr. Fedoroff's previously stated position on treatability could prematurely preclude a dangerous offender designation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) to establish a timetable for the remainder of the action, which involved a claim for unpaid construction work on a custom home.

The defendants sought to have the action dismissed for delay.

The Master found that the plaintiffs had an acceptable explanation for the delay, as their former lawyer failed to advance the action despite their instructions, and that the defendants suffered no non-compensable prejudice.

The motion was granted, allowing the action to proceed with a new deadline to set it down for trial.

The applicants, dissident shareholders of Oremex Silver Inc., requisitioned a shareholders' meeting.

The directors called a meeting for November but later postponed it to December, setting a new record date.

Just before the new record date, the directors issued 34.5 million shares to a third party in escrow, significantly diluting the applicants' voting power.

The applicants sought to confirm a meeting they held in November or, alternatively, to change the record date for the December meeting.

The court found the directors validly postponed the November meeting but improperly issued shares to manipulate the voting process for the December meeting.

The court ordered a new record date prior to the share issuance and appointed an independent chair for the December meeting.