The applicant, an equal shareholder and medical director of fertility clinics, sought interim relief in a corporate oppression claim against her estranged husband, the sole director of most corporate entities.
She alleged mismanagement, diversion of funds, and exclusion from decision-making.
The court applied the "serious issue" test for interim injunctions, finding a serious issue and irreparable harm to the business and her professional duties if the status quo continued.
The balance of convenience favored the applicant.
The court ordered the applicant to be appointed as a co-director of all respondent corporations with the individual respondent, and restrained the individual respondent from interfering in patient care or medical processes, aiming to prevent deadlock and preserve the business while acknowledging the underlying matrimonial dispute.
