Weis Noorani

The applicant, a 41% shareholder, sought the appointment of an interim monitor to oversee the finances and operations of the Corporation pending an oppression application.

The applicant alleged that the respondents breached a prior consent order by making unauthorized payments and excluding the applicant from operations.

The respondents brought a cross-motion seeking interim control of the day-to-day operations.

The court found a prima facie case of oppression and a complete breakdown of trust between the parties.

The court granted the applicant's motion, appointing an interim monitor with a limited supervisory mandate to oversee contracts and payments, and dismissed the respondents' cross-motion.

The responding party was previously found in contempt for failing to secure his equalization and spousal support obligations via life insurance and pension designation for 25 years.

At the sentencing hearing, the court found he had not purged his contempt and continued to make excuses.

The court ordered a penalty of $75,000 enforceable by a Support Deduction Order, a fine of $5,000, directed the release of estate funds held in Australia, and stayed his pending motion to change spousal support until the contempt is purged.

The appellants commenced an action against the respondent, a personal injury lawyer, for damages arising from the non-payment of referral fees allegedly owed under an oral contract spanning 1984 to 2018.

The appellants claimed entitlement to 10% of gross settlements or awards on over 130 referred lawsuits.

The respondent denied the existence of any contract and brought a summary judgment motion relying on denial of contract, alleged illegality, and limitation defences.

The motion judge found genuine issues requiring trial regarding contract existence and legality but granted partial summary judgment on limitation grounds, dismissing claims for lawsuits settling before December 10, 2017.

The appellants appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in characterizing the contract and in failing to recognize that the cause of action did not arise until the relationship ended in 2018.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly determined that the cause of action accrued when each referred lawsuit settled and payment was not made, regardless of whether the full extent of damages was known.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of $41,597.02 in statutory accident benefits paid to the respondent, alleging she fraudulently misrepresented her inability to work and need for attendant care.

The respondent, a personal support worker, had signed a statutory declaration and pleadings in a separate lawsuit admitting she provided and was paid for personal care services to a third party during the same period she received income replacement and attendant care benefits.

The Tribunal found the respondent's evidence at the hearing lacked credibility and concluded she willfully misrepresented her ability to earn an income and her need for attendant care.

The respondent was ordered to repay $23,600 in income replacement benefits and $5,970.92 in attendant care benefits, plus interest, but was not required to repay medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer's request for costs was denied.