3 total
The court granted an interim oppression remedy appointing an equal shareholder as co-director.
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.
The court dismissed a motion to amend an application and converted the proceeding into an action due to highly contested material facts.
The Applicants, Roof Tile Management Group Inc. and Roof Tile Management Inc., brought an application seeking declaratory relief and other non-monetary orders, along with a motion to amend their Notice of Application to seek a reference for damages.
The Respondents, Henry Forget and 2149220 Ontario Inc., opposed both the amendment and the application as the proper form of proceeding, arguing that the case involved highly contested facts requiring an action.
The court dismissed the Applicants' motion to amend, finding it would improperly bifurcate the proceeding and cause procedural injustice.
The court also converted the application into an action under Rule 38.10, determining that an application was not the appropriate forum to resolve the significant factual disputes concerning liability and damages.
Tenant validly exercised commercial lease option to purchase; landlord's claim of prior exercise and forfeiture rejected.
The applicant tenant brought an application for a declaration that it validly exercised its option to purchase two commercial properties from the respondent landlord.
The landlord argued the tenant had exercised the option earlier via an email and subsequently forfeited it by failing to close.
The court found the tenant clearly and unequivocally exercised the option on January 21, 2023, in strict conformity with the lease terms, and was entitled to purchase the properties.
The court also noted it would have granted relief from forfeiture if necessary.
Costs of $35,000 were awarded to the tenant.
