William McLennan

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for investment fraud on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The plaintiffs had invested funds between 2006 and 2008 but stopped receiving payments shortly after.

Despite making inquiries and receiving no payments or return of principal by May 2013, the plaintiffs did not commence their action until September 2016.

The court found that a reasonable person in the plaintiffs' circumstances ought to have known of the claim by May 2013 at the latest.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

This decision encompasses the Phase II supplementary reasons and the appended Phase I trial reasons regarding a dispute over a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) for an insurance brokerage.

In Phase I, the court found that the defendants breached the SPA and acted oppressively by constructively dismissing key employees, which negatively impacted the target EBITDA.

The court also ruled that any reduction in the purchase price for failing to meet the target EBITDA was limited to the value of the Preferred Shares.

In Phase II, the court adopted the parties' joint submissions resolving the remaining factual and legal issues regarding specific EBITDA adjustments, directing the parties to proceed to Phase III to calculate the final deferred payment.

The plaintiff sold its shares in a specialized transportation insurance broker to the defendant under a Share Purchase Agreement.

The agreement included a deferred payment for preferred shares, which could be reduced if the company failed to meet an earnings target during a three-year warranty period.

The company failed to meet the target, and the plaintiff brought an action for oppression and breach of contract, alleging the defendant sabotaged the earnings by constructively dismissing key employees and misallocating commissions.

The court found that the defendant constructively dismissed two key salespeople and acted oppressively, breaching the plaintiff's reasonable expectations.

The court ruled that any reduction in the purchase price was limited to the preferred shares and awarded the plaintiff credits for certain misallocated commissions, while reserving other issues for further submissions.