Business Disputes Published Cases

  • Successfully had the Certificate of Pending Litigation (the “CPL”) registered against the title to the Defendant’s property removed. The Plaintiff’s Notice of Civil claim included various allegations of misconduct, unjust enrichment, and trust claims to the property of the Defendant. By Arguing that the Notice of Civil Claim, as drafted, cannot support a claim for an interest in land, the Court agreed and ordered the removal of the CPL.
  • A successful petition was brought seeking a wind-up of a company based on oppressive conduct by one shareholder. The court confirmed that oppressive conduct can be ongoing and the oppression remedy is to relieve against such conduct. Operation of a company through litigation is an obvious sign of a deadlock, as was the failure to follow corporate governance, such as holding an AGM, appointing auditors, and providing financial statements.
  • Successfully defended against a petition seeking the wind-up of a corporation on the basis that the petitioners, who were minority shareholders attempting to monetize their investment, when there was really no justifiable loss in confidence in the management of the company or its business. Conversely, it was the petitioner.
  • Successfully defended two defendants in a lengthy (100-day) trial arising out of the bankruptcy of a failed joint venture land assembly project. Multiple claims were alleged, including Breach of Trust, Money had and Received, Trustee de Son Tort, and breach of oral agreements.
  • Represented a minority shareholder in complicated valuation/arbitration proceedings and determined what types of evidence are admissible in valuing shares.
  • This was a unique application to sell a group of companies and to remove a director, replacing her with a minority shareholder based upon a report from a receiver manager where the court found financial misconduct and breaches of fiduciary by the majority shareholder.
  • A successful application to remedy ongoing oppressive conduct by the appointment of a receiver manger to run corporations which had been mismanaged. The court found that there had been waste, the improper disposition of property, improper management, a lack of proper accounting and improper profiting personally by the majority shareholder.
  • Successfully brought an oppression and wind-up action on behalf of a minority shareholder against the majority holder. The Court found that the majority shareholder had acted oppressively and unfairly prejudicial in her conduct which included unequal repayment of shareholder loans, changes in how corporate profits were redistributed and the marginalization of a minority shareholder as well as lack of proper corporate governance.