Zachary Pringle

The applicant minority shareholder sought remedies for alleged oppression by the respondents, claiming they concealed conflicts of interest in related-party transactions.

The parties agreed that the respondents should buy out the applicant's shares, but disputed the valuation and whether the applicant was subject to Canadian economic sanctions against Russia due to its principals' ties to a sanctioned Russian entity.

The court found no oppression, as the applicant knew or ought to have known of the overlapping ownership.

The court set the buyout value based on the midpoint of the experts' market approaches and applied a 10% minority discount.

However, finding considerable evidence that the applicant might be subject to sanctions, the court ordered that no payment be made until Global Affairs Canada rules on the sanctions issue.

Three defendants each brought motions to compel the plaintiff railway company to answer questions refused on examination for discovery in an action arising from a 2020 train derailment involving a tanker car with a defective wheelset.

The court assessed relevance and proportionality of the requested questions, ordering the plaintiff to answer 4 of 12 questions sought by the railway manufacturer, 1 of 9 sought by the tanker car owner, and 3 of 4 sought by the shipper.

Costs followed the divided success, with the tanker car owner ordered to pay $5,000 to the plaintiff and the plaintiff ordered to pay $7,500 to the shipper.

The defendants moved to set aside an ex parte order that extended the deadline for service of the Statement of Claim, alleging the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts and caused prejudice.

The plaintiff cross-moved to validate service.

The court found that the plaintiff's affidavit on the ex parte motion was inadequate, failing to disclose that defendants' counsel had offered to accept service and that the MFDA was also investigating the defendants for the same conduct.

The court determined that the defendants suffered prejudice because they entered into a settlement agreement with the MFDA, making admissions that would impair their defence in this action, under the belief that the litigation was not proceeding.

The defendants' motion was granted, and the ex parte order was set aside.

The plaintiff's cross-motion was dismissed.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment motion.

The appellant claimed he was not obliged to repay interest on debts due to misrepresentation and conflict of interest by his lawyer, who was also involved with the respondent lender.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no evidentiary support or legal defence for the appellant's claims.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal the costs order was refused.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's breach of contract action for delay under Rules 48.14(7)(a) and 24.01.

The court found that the plaintiff adequately explained the delay, which was largely due to the health issues and subsequent murder of the plaintiff's former counsel, as well as concurrent delays by the defendant.

The court also found no significant prejudice to the defendant.

The motion was dismissed, a new litigation schedule was imposed, and costs of $25,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for the repayment of a $100,000 loan.

The defendant argued the loan was unenforceable due to the involvement of his former lawyer, who allegedly arranged the loan to pay off a debt owed to the defendant and may have received secret commissions from the plaintiff.

The court found no evidence to support the defendant's speculative defenses or to implicate the plaintiff in any wrongdoing.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and awarded full indemnity costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to add allegations of revenue misrepresentation related to a share purchase agreement.

The defendants opposed, arguing the amendments asserted a new cause of action after the expiry of the limitation period and were barred by a survival clause in the agreement.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the original pleading lacked the factual matrix for the new claim, the defendants had elicited the necessary material facts during discovery, meaning it was not a new cause of action.

The court also held that the survival clause did not bar the claim as it only required the claim to arise within two years, not that notice be given.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the fixed amount of $1,249.78.

The plaintiff, Baeumler Quality Construction Inc., sought costs after successfully defending a motion by the defendants, the Pirraglias, to strike a construction lien.

The court, having dismissed the Pirraglias' motion, was tasked with determining the quantum of costs.

Baeumler requested $23,002.10 on a partial indemnity scale, while the Pirraglias proposed $7,500.

Considering factors such as proportionality, the stakes, scope, and reasonableness, the court awarded Baeumler $15,000 in costs, noting that the requested amount was too high for a one-issue motion primarily based on documentary evidence, especially given the principal claim was for $34,000.