IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
|
|
- Darleen Small
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Citation: Brar v Brar et al, 2018 MBCA 87 Date: Docket: AI IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Madam Justice Freda M. Steel Mr. Justice Christopher J. Mainella Madam Justice Jennifer A. Pfuetzner BETWEEN: BALWINDER BRAR ) F. J. Trippier and ) A. K. Anjoubault (Applicant) Respondent ) for the Appellants ) - and - ) D. G. Hill ) for the Respondent SATNAM BRAR, MANITOBA ) LTD., MANITOBA INC. and ) Appeal heard: AIKINS MACAULAY & THORVALDSON ) March 13, 2018 LLP ) ) Judgment delivered: (Respondents) Appellants ) September 12, 2018 PFUETZNER JA [1] This appeal raises, for the first time in this Court, the important question of the limits of the oppression remedy (see section 234 of The Corporations Act, CCSM c C225 (the Act)), and offers an opportunity to provide direction on this issue. [2] The specific question is whether a remedy under section 234 of the Act is available to provide redress for what is, in essence, a breach of contract dispute between shareholders in their personal capacities. [3] As will be explained, the application judge erred in granting a remedy under the Act in respect of conduct that did not constitute oppression as defined in the Act.
2 Page: 2 [4] For the reasons that follow, I would allow the appeal. Background [5] The applicant, Balwinder Brar (Billy), and his respondent brother, Satnam Brar (Sid), were each fifty per cent shareholders and directors in two Manitoba corporations, Manitoba Ltd. and Manitoba Inc. (the corporations). The corporations owned and operated two gas stations in Winnipeg. [6] The brothers relationship deteriorated and, in 2014, they began discussing a separation of their business interests. They reached a verbal agreement that Sid would obtain full ownership of a co-venture operated by the brothers under the name Legacy Homes and that, in exchange, Billy would obtain full ownership of the shares in the corporations. [7] The lawyer for the corporations, in consultation with the corporations accountant, prepared the necessary documents. Around August 2015, a share purchase agreement (the SPA) was drafted whereby Billy agreed to purchase Sid s shares. The SPA is between Billy and Sid only; the corporations are not parties, nor do they have any interest in the SPA. The SPA was not signed at that time but, according to Billy, after that point, he operated the companies under the assumption that he was the sole director, officer and shareholder and was completely responsible for all facets of the business. Billy executed the SPA and ancillary documents in late November 2015 at the accountant s office. [8] In or around December 2015, Sid executed the SPA and ancillary documents at the lawyer s office. According to Sid, however, he was unsure whether he wanted to go through with the transaction and told the lawyer to
3 Page: 3 put the deal on hold. The lawyer, who was examined out of court, agreed that she was instructed that the transaction was to be delayed or postponed. [9] The documents were never sent to Billy, nor was he told that the transaction was on hold. According to Billy, he did not find out until he received a letter from the lawyer in May 2016, claiming that Sid still had an interest in the corporations. [10] Billy filed an application under the oppression provisions of section 234 of the Act seeking various forms of relief. Billy s supporting affidavits dealt not only with the negotiation and execution of the SPA, but made allegations that Sid had misappropriated funds from the corporations. [11] The matter proceeded before the application judge on affidavit evidence. The application judge also had the transcripts of Billy s crossexamination and the lawyer s examination. Sid was not cross-examined. [12] While the corporations were named as respondents in the application, significantly, they did not take a position. At the hearing of the application, counsel appeared for the corporations on a watching brief. [13] The application judge s analysis focussed on whether there was a binding agreement between Billy and Sid for the purchase and sale of Sid s shares. The application judge noted that, Billy has framed his action as a claim for relief under the oppression sections of [the Act] (at para 2). Applying Matic et al v Waldner et al, 2016 MBCA 60, in a brief endorsement, he stated that the focus of the court s inquiry should be whether an objective reasonable bystander looking at all the material facts would conclude that an agreement was reached (at para 18).
4 Page: 4 [14] After reviewing the evidence, the application judge concluded (at para 3): I am satisfied that the parties entered into binding agreements to transfer ownership and control of the corporations to Billy and Sid s refusal to implement or give effect to those agreements constitutes a violation of Billy s reasonably held expectations as a shareholder and meets the definition of oppressive conduct that is unfairly prejudicial or unfairly disregards the interests of Billy as a shareholder. [15] The application judge ordered the following relief (at para 25): 1. There will be a declaration that Billy is the sole shareholder, officer and director of the two corporations effective December 23, 2015, as that is the latest possible date for Sid to have signed the SPA and supporting documents; 2. There will be an order directing the Lawyer and/or the [law firm] as it now exists to do all things necessary for the SPA and supporting documents executed by Sid and Billy to be placed on the Minute Books of the corporations and that the Minute Books be released to Billy; 3. There will be an order that Sid issue an accounting to Billy for all cheques or funds taken from the corporate bank accounts after December 23, 2015, and if the parties should then disagree as to whether or not those funds were used to advance the interests of the corporations. [16] The application judge made no ruling in respect of the ownership of Legacy Homes. [17] Although, as previously mentioned, Billy s application and affidavits raised other issues, such as alleged misappropriation of funds by Sid, none of these issues or evidence was dealt with by the application judge. The application proceeded on the sole issue of whether Billy and Sid had entered into a binding agreement that was breached by Sid. Indeed, at the
5 Page: 5 hearing of the appeal, Sid argued that the core of this case was the intention to create binding legal relations, while Billy advised that the core issue that was raised before the application judge was whether there was offer and acceptance. Positions of the Parties [18] Sid argues that the application should have been dismissed, adding that this was not an appropriate case for an oppression remedy to have been granted. He also submits that the matter should have gone to trial because of the significant facts in dispute and credibility issues. He says that the application judge should not have found a binding contract due to unresolved inconsistencies in the evidence. [19] Billy argues that the application judge did not err in granting an oppression remedy because the dispute that occurred was between the parties in their capacity as directors, shareholders and, lastly, as brothers. He maintains that the application judge correctly found that Sid s conduct, in failing to honour the contract, was oppressive. He submits that the law of oppression in Manitoba does not prohibit proceeding under section 234 of the Act when the complainant has legal rights enforceable in contract or tort. Discussion [20] The issue on appeal was not raised before the application judge. The parties had proceeded on the assumption that a claim for breach of a contract between individuals, who also happen to be shareholders in the same corporations, could properly form the basis for an oppression remedy. [21] In general, appeal courts will not consider a new issue that has not
6 Page: 6 been raised in the trial court absent exceptional circumstances, namely: there is a risk of an injustice; the issue can be decided without further evidence; and there is no procedural prejudice to any party (see Samborski Garden Supplies Ltd v MacDonald (Rural Municipality), 2015 MBCA 26 at para 27). [22] I am satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist in this case. The issue goes to the essential validity of the application judge s order and no additional evidence is required to determine if a legal error occurred. When raised at the hearing of the appeal, the issue was addressed by counsel for both parties and an adjournment was not requested or considered necessary by the panel. Accordingly, it is appropriate in the circumstances for this Court to consider and provide direction on this important issue. [23] I will begin by reviewing the nature of the oppression remedy. The Law [24] The oppression sections of the Act read as follows: Application to court re oppression 234(1) A complainant may apply to a court for an order under this section. Grounds 234(2) If, upon an application under subsection (1), the court is satisfied that in respect of a corporation or any of its affiliates (a) any act or omission of the corporation or any of its affiliates effects a result; or (b) the business or affairs of the corporation or any of its affiliates are or have been carried on or conducted in a manner; or (c) the powers of the directors of the corporation or any of its affiliates are or have been exercised in a manner;
7 Page: 7 that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial or that unfairly disregards the interests of any security holder, creditor, director or officer, the court may make an order to rectify the matters complained of. [25] Broad remedial powers are given to the Court under section 234(3) to address the conduct set out in section 234(2). [26] The provisions of section 234 of the Act are virtually identical to the oppression sections of the Canada Business Corporations Act, RSC 1985, c C-44, considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in BCE Inc v 1976 Debentureholders, 2008 SCC 69. The Court commented on the proper approach to the interpretation of the oppression provisions (at paras 56, 58): One should look first to the principles underlying the oppression remedy, and in particular the concept of reasonable expectations. [O]ppression is an equitable remedy. It seeks to ensure fairness what is just and equitable. It gives a court broad, equitable jurisdiction to enforce not just what is legal but what is fair.... It follows that courts considering claims for oppression should look at business realities, not merely narrow legalities: Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, [(1958), [1959] AC 324 (HL (Scot))] at p [27] Importantly, for the purposes of this appeal, the Court in BCE noted the distinction between remedies for breach of rights or obligations as opposed to expectations (at para 61): Rights and obligations connote interests enforceable at law without recourse to special remedies, for example, through a contractual suit or a derivative action under s. 239 of the [Canada Business Corporations Act]. It is left for the oppression remedy to deal with the expectations of affected stakeholders. The reasonable expectations of these stakeholders is the cornerstone of the oppression remedy.
8 Page: 8 [28] BCE illustrates the principle that, if an aggrieved party has a legal remedy available, such as through an action on a contract or in tort, there is no basis for that party to bring a claim for an oppression remedy. The purpose of the enactment of the statutory oppression remedy was to enable those with an interest in a corporation to have their reasonable expectations protected in circumstances where there was no other legal recourse available to them. [29] It follows from this that the oppression remedy is not appropriate for a simple breach of contract case. Although this Court has not previously directly addressed this issue (see, however, Matic at paras ), courts in other Canadian jurisdictions have done so. [30] Recently, Newbury JA, in Ontario Ltd v CSA Building Sciences Western Ltd, 2016 BCCA 258, leave to appeal to SCC refused, (19 January 2017), concluded (at para 53): It is clear the oppression action was intended to permit courts to remedy oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct not generally susceptible to correction by other forms of redress. Where the claimant already has a clear remedy in contract, tort, or debt, for example the court is unlikely to grant a remedy under s [31] To similar effect is Ernst & Young Inc v Essar Global Fund Limited, 2017 ONCA 1014, where Pepall JA, considering the oppression provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act, wrote (at para 144): the oppression remedy is not available as redress for a simple contractual breach (such as the failure to pay a debt). [32] As explained, the oppression remedy was not meant to be a substitute for pursuit of legal rights. It was enacted to address a specific gap in the law. Unhappy corporate stakeholders are not entitled to pursue an
9 Page: 9 oppression claim when they have legal redress that will adequately compensate them. [33] The limits on the oppression remedy become clear when one examines the wording used in the Act. First, the grounds for granting a remedy in section 234(2) of the Act refer to actions of the corporation: any act or omission of the corporation (at section 234(2)(a)); the business or affairs of the corporation... have been carried on (at section 234(2)(b)); or the powers of the directors of the corporation... have been exercised (at section 234(2)(c)). Second, the impugned corporate action must affect the complainant in his or her capacity as a corporate stakeholder, not in his or her personal capacity. The action must be such that it is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial or [it] unfairly disregards the interests of any security holder, creditor, director or officer of the corporation (at section 234(2)) (emphasis added). [34] What these provisions mean is that, for the oppression remedy to be available, the act complained of must be an act of the corporation that affects the complainant s interests in his or her capacity as a corporate stakeholder, officer or director (see Wilson v Alharayeri, 2017 SCC 39 at para 54). [35] These principles were illustrated in Benedetti v North Park Electronics (1980) Ltd, 1997 CarswellOnt 559 (Ct J (Gen Div)), aff d 1997 CarswellOnt 5079 (Ct J (Gen Div) (Div Ct)), a case with facts similar to those on this appeal. The applicant (Benedetti), who was a minority shareholder, wanted to change the way the business was run and this led to the idea of a share transfer. A self-drafted letter of intent was signed with the other shareholders. The relationship broke down and the transfer did not happen. Benedetti commenced an oppression proceeding claiming the affairs of the
10 Page: 10 company had been conducted in an unfair manner, particularly with respect to the failure to complete the agreement as contemplated in the letter of intent. The respondents countered that this was not a proper circumstance in which to apply the oppression remedy and, if the letter of intent was a valid enforceable agreement, then Benedetti s action was for breach of contract. Epstein J (as she then was) wrote (at para 48): While there may have been other acts of the North Park shareholders that could properly have been the subject of an application for oppression, the only one relied upon by Mr. Benedetti was the respondent s failure to complete the May 5 letter of intent. In that regard, Mr. Benedetti is not complaining of any act of a corporation whereby his interests as a shareholder, officer or director have been unfairly regarded. The complaint of Mr. Benedetti is not as shareholder of North Park; his complaint is that the other shareholders refused to complete something that from his perspective is an enforceable share transfer agreement. In the case of Wittlin v. Bergman (1994), 19 O.R. (3d) 146 (Gen. Div.), Justice Farley recognized that a complaint of this nature is, pure and simple, not oppression. The oppression remedy is designed to protect interests qua security holder, creditor, director or officer it is not designed to enforce contracts between people, just because they happen to be shareholders. That is properly the subject of an action. [emphasis added] [36] Another example is Johnston v West Fraser Timber Co, 1982 CarswellBC 160 (CA), leave to appeal to SCC refused, [1982] SCCA No 113. The petitioner had threatened to resign as president of the corporation. To induce him to stay, the majority shareholders had agreed in a general very loose way (at para 22) to reduce their shareholdings to below fifty per cent either by selling their shares to the petitioner, using treasury shares or creating a public market for the shares. When the majority took no steps to complete this agreement, the petitioner sued for oppression. Bull JA, writing for the
11 Page: 11 Court, held that the breach of the agreement was not oppressive, noting as follows (at para 71): [T]he breach complained of could not be oppressive conduct of company affairs. It would be a breach of a private arrangement outside the carrying on of the company affairs. Likewise, neither the giving of the assurances nor any breach was in exercise of directors powers as such. [37] There is also ample support in academic literature for the principle that the oppression remedy is not intended for personal contractual disputes between shareholders. For example, in Kevin Patrick McGuinness, Canadian Business Corporations Law, 3rd ed (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2017) vol 3, the author writes (at paras , ): Private agreements between shareholders that are not embodied in a unanimous shareholder agreement may not be enforced via the oppression remedy. However, such agreements may still be enforced via a normal action for breach of contract. While acts of oppression may entail a breach of contract, or the commission of some tortious or similar wrong, against the complainant, the oppression remedy was not intended to be a substitute for a normal action for breach of contract.... Where the sole complaint is that of a breach of contract, then a contract action should be pursued. [footnotes omitted] See also Dennis H Peterson & Matthew J Cumming, Shareholder Remedies in Canada, 2nd ed (Markham: LexisNexis, 2009) (loose-leaf updated 2013, release 22-11) at para ; and Markus Koehnen, Oppression and Related Remedies (Thomson Carswell, 2004) at
12 Page: 12 Analysis and Decision [38] While, in his original application, Billy made allegations of misappropriation against Sid, these were not pursued before the application judge. The application judge s analysis focussed solely on whether there was a binding contract between Billy and Sid and whether Sid breached that contract. No allegations of oppressive conduct were made against the corporations per se. [39] Corporations act through their directors and officers, and Sid was a director and officer of each corporation. However, the conduct complained of, and for which the application judge granted a remedy, was done by Sid in his personal, and not his representative, capacity. There is no basis to suggest that there was any corporate action involved. The corporations did not take a position at the hearing of the application precisely because there were no claims against them to defend. [40] The lack of any direct role of the corporations is best illustrated by imagining that the subject of the contract was, instead of shares, a parcel of land that was co-owned by the brothers. If the contractual dispute unfolded the same way, there could be no suggestion that it should proceed under section 234 of the Act. Instead, it would have been resolved by way of an action on the contract. The fact that the subject of the contract was shares in the corporations is a red herring. [41] I do not accept Billy s assertion that Manitoba law allows for contractual disputes between shareholders in their personal capacities to be resolved through an oppression application. He relied on several cases to support this position (see Cohen v Jonco et al, 2005 MBCA 48; Cholakis
13 Page: 13 v Cholakis et al, 2006 MBQB 91, aff d 2007 MBCA 156; Danylchuk et al v Wolinsky et al, 2007 MBCA 132; Hatskin v Prober et al, 2011 MBQB 216; Tapper et al v Tapper et al, 2012 MBCA 36; Katz v Babkat Inc et al, 2012 MBCA 68; Rady et al v Silpit Industries Co, 2016 MBCA 11; and Davis v Saltel et al, 2016 MBQB 178). However, in none of these cases was relief granted under section 234 of the Act for conduct that did not actually constitute oppression. Not only is Billy s proposition inconsistent with the comments of the Supreme Court of Canada in BCE, as previously explained, the language used in section 234 of the Act clearly indicates that the Legislature intended the oppression remedy to be used to redress corporate actions that are not otherwise amenable to a legal remedy. [42] As stated by the Court in Shefsky v California Gold Mining Inc, 2016 ABCA 103, it would be an improper conflation of contract law and equitable oppression principles to suggest that the latter can come to the aid of a claim for breach of any contractual promises made to [the applicant] in his personal capacity (at para 74). [43] In this case, as the sole issue dealt with by the application judge was the contractual rights and obligations of Billy and Sid in their personal capacities, he erred in law by granting a remedy under section 234 of the Act. [44] Having identified the legal error made by the application judge, the question becomes whether this Court can make a final determination of the dispute between the parties based on the record. [45] Appellate courts are reluctant to require parties to undergo the cost of returning to the trial court when to do so will not realistically produce a different result or a better evidentiary record. See, for example, Snell
14 Page: 14 v Farrell, [1990] 2 SCR 311 at 336; Confederation Life Insurance Co v Woo Investments Inc, 1994 CarswellSask 470 (CA); Peter Pond Holdings Ltd v Shragge, 2003 ABCA 290; and British Columbia (Workers Compensation Board) v Figliola, 2011 SCC 52 at para 54. [46] The cases referred to above all involved matters that had been dealt with by way of a trial or administrative hearing at first instance. In each case, the choice for the appellate court was either to return the matter for a retrial or rehearing or to decide the issues on the existing record. [47] In this case, there was no trial. Because the claim was commenced as an application pursuant to section 234 of the Act, it proceeded by way of a notice of application on affidavit evidence. The application judge found that he was able to determine the issues without a trial. There is no question that an oppression claim, properly framed, can be commenced by way of a notice of application and resolved on affidavit evidence if considered appropriate by the judge hearing the application. [48] If this case had proceeded as it should have, as an action on a contract, it would have been initiated by a statement of claim, followed by a statement of defence and the usual pre-trial discovery. It most likely would have been resolved by either a judgment after a trial or on a summary judgment motion by either the plaintiff or defendant. [49] In my view, it would not be appropriate for this Court to make a decision on the contractual dispute between the parties. This is not a case where, by simply dismissing the application, we are effectively putting the parties to the expense of a second trial. Nor can I conclude that, after a trial, there would be no better evidence arising on the fundamental issue of whether
15 Page: 15 there was a binding contract. Conclusion [50] The appeal is allowed. Billy s application under section 234 of the Act is dismissed with costs in favour of Sid in this Court and in the Court below. Pfuetzner JA I agree: I agree: Steel JA Mainella JA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: MNP Ltd v Desrochers, 2018 MBCA 97 Date: 20181001 Docket: AI17-30-08933 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice Marc M. Monnin Mr. Justice Christopher J. Mainella Madam Justice
More informationDistinguishing Oppression Claims and Derivative Actions
SHAREHOLDERS REMEDIES 2011 UPDATE PAPER 2.1 Distinguishing Oppression Claims and Derivative Actions These materials were prepared by Tracey M. Cohen, T. Mark Pontin, and Graeme Hooper, all of Fasken Martineau
More informationRECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS. Brandon Jaffe Jaffe & Peritz LLP
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS Brandon Jaffe Jaffe & Peritz LLP 1 SECTION 69 OF THE BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT ( BIA ) 2 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE BIA STAY PROVISIONS 1 Since
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION
CITATION: Daniells v. McLellan, 2017 ONSC 6887 COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-5565-CP DATE: 2017/11/29 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: SHERRY-LYNN DANIELLS Plaintiff - and - MELISSA McLELLAN and
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: Dorn v Association of Professional Engineers Date: 20180305 and Geoscientists of the Province of Manitoba, Docket: AI17-30-08819 2018 MBCA 18 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice
More informationSHAREHOLDERS RIGHTS AND REMEDIES 1
Lawyers Patent & Trade-mark Agents 1200 Waterfront Centre 200 Burrard Street, P.O. Box 48600 Vancouver, B.C., Canada V7X 1T2 tel: (604) 687-5744 fax: (604) 687-1415 SHAREHOLDERS RIGHTS AND REMEDIES 1 Stephen
More informationDirectors and Standards: The Problem of Insufficient Guidance
Western University Scholarship@Western Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository September 2016 Directors and Standards: The Problem of Insufficient Guidance Nikolas Sopow The University of Western
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: City of Winnipeg v Innocent Vision Inc, Date: 20180813 2018 MBCA 76 Docket: AR18-30-09058 B ETWEEN : IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA ) R. M. McElhoes CITY OF WINNIPEG ) for the Applicant )
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: Virden Mainline Motor Products Limited v Date: 20180831 Murray et al, 2018 MBCA 82 Docket: AI17-30-08963 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice Michel A. Monnin Madam Justice Freda
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR THE YUKON TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE YUKON TERRITORY Citation: Between: And And Yukon v. McBee, 2010 YKCA 8 Government of Yukon Yukon Human Rights Commission Donna McBee a.k.a. Donna Molloy and Yukon Human Rights Board
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Between: Date: 20120215 Docket: CA039639 Ingrid Andrea Franzke And Appellant (Petitioner) Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal Respondent (Defendant) Before: The Honourable
More informationGOVERNANCE OF CANADIAN PUBLIC TRUSTS
GOVERNANCE OF CANADIAN PUBLIC TRUSTS CCGG has identified that Canadian public entities structured as trusts (including income trusts and REITs) do not have uniform provisions in their constating documents
More informationIndexed As: Figueiras v. York (Regional Municipality) et al. Ontario Court of Appeal Rouleau, van Rensburg and Pardu, JJ.A. March 30, 2015.
Paul Figueiras (applicant/appellant) v. Toronto Police Services Board, Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board, and Mark Charlebois (respondents/respondents) (C58771; 2015 ONCA 208) Indexed
More informationNOTICE OF APPLICATION
Vancouver 25-Jan-19 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA No. S1710393 Vancouver Registry IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN MERVYN ASSAM AND CLICO INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED CENTRAL BANK OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO FIRST CITIZENS BANK LIMITED
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV2009-04584 BETWEEN MERVYN ASSAM Claimant AND CLICO INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED First Defendant CENTRAL BANK OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Second
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Walter Energy Canada Holdings, Inc. (Re), 2018 BCSC 1135 Date: 20180709 Docket: S1510120 Registry: Vancouver In the Matter of the Companies Creditors
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Larc Developments Ltd. v. Levelton Engineering Ltd., 2010 BCCA 18 Commonwealth Insurance Company Larc Developments Ltd. and Rita A. Carle Date:
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And And Before: Burnaby (City) v. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, 2014 BCCA 465 City of Burnaby Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC The National Energy Board
More informationCitation: R v Beaulieu, 2018 MBCA 120 Date: Docket: AR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: R v Beaulieu, 2018 MBCA 120 Date: 20181114 Docket: AR17-30-08802 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Madam Justice Holly C. Beard Madam Justice Jennifer A. Pfuetzner Madam Justice Janice
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288 Date: 20171107 Docket: Bwt No. 459126 Registry: Bridgewater Between: Michael Dockrill, in his capacity as the executor
More informationRecent Developments in the Canadian Law of Contract
Honest Performance and Absolutely Everything Else By Ryan P. Krushelnitzky and Sandra L. Corbett QC Recent Developments in the Canadian Law of Contract Bhasin and Sattva represent important changes and
More informationVANCOUVER AUG
VANCOUVER AUG 0 2 2011 COURT OF APPEAL REGISTRY Court of Appeal File No. CA44448 COURT OF APPEAL ON APPEAL FROM the Order of the Honourable Madam Justice Fitzpatrick of the Supreme Court of British Columbia,
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL. JOHN McGOWAN and CAROLYN McGOWAN THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: McGowan v. Bank of Nova Scotia 2011 PECA 20 Date: 20111214 Docket: S1-CA-1202 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND:
More informationI. ZNAMENSKY SELEKCIONNO-GIBRIDNY CENTER LLC V.
(Press control and right arrow for the same effect) (Press control and left arrow for the same effect) znamensky X Français English Home > Ontario > Superior Court of Justice > 2009 CanLII 51197
More informationTHE SIX-MINUTE Environmental Lawyer
TAB 1 THE SIX-MINUTE Environmental Lawyer The Latest on Damages for Continuing Nuisance Bryan Buttigieg, C.S. Miller Thomson LLP October 20, 2016 Six-Minute Environmental Lawyer 2016 The Law Society of
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Lieberman et al. v. Business Development Bank of Canada, 2005 BCSC 389 Date: 20050318 Docket: L041024 Registry: Vancouver Lucien Lieberman and
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Summary conviction appeal from a Judicial Justice of the Peace and Provincial Court Judge Date: 20181031 Docket: CR 17-01-36275 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Grant Cited as: 2018 MBQB 171 COURT OF
More informationA View From the Bench Administrative Law
A View From the Bench Administrative Law Justice David Farrar Nova Scotia Court of Appeal With the Assistance of James Charlton, Law Clerk Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Court of Appeal for Ontario: Mavi
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And And Before: Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. v. Wedgemount Power Limited Partnership, 2018 BCCA 283 Date: 20180709 Dockets:
More informationHoulden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter
2012 37 Houlden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter Date: September 10, 2012 Headlines The Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the issue of how to distribute commingled funds to the victims of a fraudulent
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20181121 Docket: CI 16-01-04438 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Shirritt-Beaumont v. Frontier School Division Cited as: 2018 MBQB 177 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) APPEARANCES: ) RAYMOND
More information2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Br...
Page 1 of 7 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Brokers), 2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation and Keith
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAN FERNANDO BETWEEN AND BETWEEN AND. Mr. G. Mungalsingh instructed by Mr. R. Mungalsingh for the Claimant.
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim Nos. C.V. 2009-01304 C.V.2009-01305 C.V.2009-01306 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAN FERNANDO BETWEEN KHAIMA PERSAD Claimant AND Claim No. C.V. 2009-04190 STEPHEN BAIL
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Garber v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 BCCA 385 Date: 20150916 Dockets: CA41883, CA41919, CA41920 Docket: CA41883 Between: And Kevin Garber Respondent
More informationInc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using privity and agency to hold third parties liable
1196303 Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using privity and agency to hold third parties liable Mary Paterson* and Gerard Kennedy**, Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP The Ontario Court of Appeal s August 2015
More informationCourt Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division (G) G1143 (2014 NLTD(G) 131)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40 Date: August 4, 2016 Docket: 14/96 BETWEEN: TANYA TUCK APPELLANT AND: SUPREME HOLDINGS
More informationIndexed As: Hopkins v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd. Manitoba Court of Appeal Hamilton, Chartier, C.J.M., and Beard, JJ.A. July 5, 2013.
William Eric Hopkins and Christa Leigh Hopkins (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd. (defendant/appellant) (AI 12-30-07742; 2013 MBCA 67) Indexed As: Hopkins v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd.
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Origin: Appeal from a decision of the Master of the Court of Queen's Bench, dated June 5, 2013 Date: 20131213 Docket: CI 13-01-81367 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Jewish Community Campus of Winnipeg Inc.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: Stadler v Director, St Boniface/ Date: 20181010 St Vital, 2018 MBCA 103 Docket: AI18-30-09081 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA B ETWEEN : K. A. Burwash for the Applicant A. J. Ladyka MARTIN
More informationGood Faith and Honesty: Bhasin v Hrynew
Good Faith and Honesty: Bhasin v Hrynew June 9, 2015 Toronto, Ontario Marc Kestenberg, Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP Marlo Kravetsky, Senior Counsel, TD Bank Group Deborah Reine, Senior Counsel,
More informationHALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON
CITATION: Whitters v. Furtive Networks Inc., 2012 ONSC 2159 COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-420068 DATE: 20120405 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON - and - FURTIVE NETWORKS
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180705 Docket: CI 14-01-87274 CI 17-01-10191 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Outland Camps Inc. v. M&L General Contracting Ltd. et al. Cited as: 2018 MBQB 112 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN:
More informationHEARD: Before the Honourable Justice A. David MacAdam, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on May 25 & June 15, 2000
Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission) v. Sam's Place et al. Date: [20000803] Docket: [SH No. 163186] 1999 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA BETWEEN: THE NOVA SCOTIA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION APPLICANT
More informationAN OVERVIEW OF EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES
EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES IN CIVIL LITIGATION 2 EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES Extraordinary remedies available in civil proceedings include: Prohibitive, Mandatory and Preventative Injunctions Preservation of and
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT R.S.O. 1990, C. S.5, AS AMENDED - AND. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID CHARLES PHILLIPS and JOHN RUSSELL WILSON
Ontario Commission des 22 nd Floor 22e étage Securities valeurs mobilières 20 Queen Street West 20, rue queen ouest Commission de l Ontario Toronto ON M5H 3S8 Toronto ON M5H 3S8 IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Citation: Lank v. Government of PEI 2010 PESC 09 Date: Docket: S1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Lank v. Government of PEI 2010 PESC 09 Date: 20100218 Docket: S1-GS-16828 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Stephen Lank and Stephen Lank Enterprises Inc.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between. And. HER WORSHIP SENIOR MAGISTRATE MRS. INDRA RAMOO-HAYNES Defendant
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV 2012-00707 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between ALVIN And AHYEW Claimant HER WORSHIP SENIOR MAGISTRATE MRS. INDRA RAMOO-HAYNES Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520 DATE: 20150709 DOCKET: C59661 BETWEEN Laskin, Lauwers and Hourigan JJ.A.
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) ) Defendant ) ) DECISION ON MOTION:
CITATION: Rush v. Via Rail Canada Inc., 2017 ONSC 2243 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-507160 DATE: 20170518 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Yael Rush and Thomas Rush Plaintiffs and Via Rail Canada Inc.
More informationand REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
Citation: New Brunswick (Financial and Consumer Services Commission) v. Stratus Financial Group International, 2015 NBFCST 2 PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK FINANCIAL AND CONSUMER SERVICES TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180110 Docket: PR 16-01-03410 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: McGregor et al. v. Krall Cited as: 2018 MBQB 7 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: SARAH JEAN McGREGOR, CHRISTINE NOEL TAYLOR,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA IN BANKRUPTCY & INSOLVENCY Citation: Royal Bank of Canada v. 2M Farms Ltd., 2017 NSSC 235
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA IN BANKRUPTCY & INSOLVENCY Citation: Royal Bank of Canada v. 2M Farms Ltd., 2017 NSSC 235 Date: 20170906 Docket: Hfx No. 425907 Registry: Halifax Between: Royal Bank of Canada
More informationA summary of Injurious Affection
A summary of Injurious Affection Where no land of the claimant is expropriated By Devesh Gupta 30 March 2011 For the Ontario Expropriation Association Introduction The Ontario Expropriations Act 1 ( OEA
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: North Point Holdings Ltd. v. Palmeter, 2016 NSSC 39
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: North Point Holdings Ltd. v. Palmeter, 2016 NSSC 39 Date: 20160129 Docket: Hfx No. 317894 Registry: Halifax Between: North Point Holdings Limited and John Bashynski
More informationCommercial Litigation. Update
A P R I L 2 0 1 4 Commercial Litigation Update EDITOR: John Polyzogopoulos 416.593.2953 jpolyzogopoulos@blaney.com This newsletter is designed to bring news of changes to the law, new law, interesting
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Impulsora Turistica de Occidente, S.A. de C.V. v., 2007 SCC 20 DATE: 20070525 DOCKET: 31456 BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: Impulsora Turistica de Occidente, S.A. de
More informationWhen Will the Court Order a Trial of an Oppression Proceeding?
SHAREHOLDERS REMEDIES 2011 UPDATE PAPER 3.1 When Will the Court Order a Trial of an Oppression Proceeding? These materials were prepared by Mark D. Andrews, QC and Joel Payne, both of Fasken Martineau
More informationCase Name: Ontario Ltd. v. Acchione
Case Name: 1390957 Ontario Ltd. v. Acchione Between 1390957 Ontario Limited, applicant (appellant), and Valerie Acchione and Royal LePage Real Estate Services Ltd., respondents (Valerie Acchione, respondent
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: R v Gladue, 2018 MBCA 89 Date: 20180910 Docket: AR18-30-09021 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Madam Justice Holly C. Beard Madam Justice Diana M. Cameron Madam Justice Jennifer A. Pfuetzner
More informationAuthors: HGJ Beukes and WJC Swart
Authors: HGJ Beukes and WJC Swart PEEL V HAMON J&C ENGINEERING (PTY) LTD: IGNORING THE RESULT- REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 163(1)(a) OF THE COMPANIES ACT AND EXTENDING THE OPPRESSION REMEDY BEYOND ITS STATUTORILY
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c.
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST Court File No. CV-15-10832-00CL IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER OF A PLAN
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Downer v. The Personal Insurance Company, 2012 ONCA 302 Ryan M. Naimark, for the appellant Lang, LaForme JJ.A. and Pattillo J. (ad hoc) John W. Bruggeman,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: West Vancouver Police Department v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2016 BCSC 934 Date: 20160525 Docket: S152619 Registry: Vancouver
More informationOn December 14, 2011, the B.C. Court of Appeal released its judgment
LIMITATION PERIODS ON DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTES: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MAKING THE NOTE PAYABLE A FIXED PERIOD AFTER DEMAND By Georges Sourisseau and Russell Robertson On December 14, 2011, the B.C. Court of
More informationDIVISIONAL COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE CAPITAL ONE BANK (CANADA BRANCH) APPELLANT S FACTUM I. STATEMENT OF THE APPEAL
Divisional Court File No. DC-12-463-00 DIVISIONAL COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: CAPITAL ONE BANK (CANADA BRANCH) -and- Plaintiff (Appellant) LAURA M. TOOGOOD aka LAURA MARIE TOOGOOD aka
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180914 Docket: CI 13-01-85087 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Paterson et al. v. Walker et al. Cited as: 2018 MBQB 150 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: SHARRON PATERSON AND ) RUSSELL
More information2013 ONSC 5288 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. S&R Flooring Concepts Inc. v. RLC Stratford LP
2013 ONSC 5288 Ontario Superior Court of Justice S&R Flooring Concepts Inc. v. RLC Stratford LP 2013 CarswellOnt 12254, 2013 ONSC 5288, 232 A.C.W.S. (3d) 95, 31 C.L.R. (4th) 89 S&R Flooring Concepts Inc.,
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (Divisional Court)
Court File No.: ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (Divisional Court) B E T W E E N : VOLKAN BASEGMEZ, CEM BLEDA BASEGMEZ ANIL RUKAN BASEGMEZ, BA&B CAPITAL INC., SERDAR KOCTURK and KAAN HOLDINGS INC. -
More informationAffidavits in Support of Motions
Affidavits in Support of Motions To be advised and verily believe or not to be advised and verily believe: That is the question Presented by: Robert Zochodne November 20, 2010 30 th Civil Litigation Updated
More informationAMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CANADA and BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION Appellants. and
CORAM: RICHARD C.J. DESJARDINS J.A. NOËL J.A. Date: 20081217 Docket: A-149-08 Citation: 2008 FCA 401 BETWEEN: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CANADA and BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION Appellants and
More informationDOCTRINE OF ULTRA VIRES-EFFECTS AND EXCEPTIONS
CONCEPT DOCTRINE OF ULTRA VIRES-EFFECTS AND EXCEPTIONS The object clause of the Memorandum of the company contains the object for which the company is formed. An act of the company must not be beyond the
More informationMr. Justice Marc M. Monnin Mr. Justice Christopher J. Mainella Madam Justice Jennifer A. Pfuetzner
Citation: Northern Regional Health Authority v Manitoba Human Rights Commission et al, 2017 MBCA 98 Date: 20171005 Docket: AI16-30-08687 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice Marc M. Monnin
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Vellone, 2011 ONCA 785 DATE: 20111214 DOCKET: C50397 MacPherson, Simmons and Blair JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Ex Rel. The Regional Municipality of York
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT S.N.B and - IN THE MATTER OF
IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT S.N.B. 2004 - and - IN THE MATTER OF INTERCONTINENTAL TRADING GROUP S.A., RON WALLACE AND GARY MCCORY (RESPONDENTS) Date of Hearing: November 18, 2009 Date of Order:
More informationINDEPENDENT FORENSIC AUDITS RE S By V.A. (Bud) MacDonald, Q.C. and Bottom Line Research. Overview
INDEPENDENT FORENSIC AUDITS RE EMAILS By V.A. (Bud) MacDonald, Q.C. and Bottom Line Research Overview On some files your opponent may be taking the position that there are no relevant emails in addition
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180919 Docket: CI 18-01-15026 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: 6165347 Manitoba Inc. et al. v. The City of Winnipeg et al. Cited as: 2018 MBQB 153 B E T W E E N: COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
More informationShort notes on: THE RIGHTS OF MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2008 AS AMENDED. Introduction
Short notes on: THE RIGHTS OF MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2008 AS AMENDED Introduction The broad concept of a company by its nature is that its affairs are managed by a board of directors
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation: Gringmuth v. The Corp. of the Dist. of North Vancouver Date: 20000524 2000 BCSC 807 Docket: C995402 Registry: Vancouver IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: AXEL GRINGMUTH PLAINTIFF
More informationLIMITATION PERIODS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS: LAASCH V. TURENNE
LIMITATION PERIODS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS 187 LIMITATION PERIODS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS: LAASCH V. TURENNE NICHOLAS RAFFERTY * I. FACTS Laasch v. Turenne 1 raised important
More informationWRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF RIOCAN AND KINGSETT (Motion Returnable July 30, 2015)
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (COMMERCIAL LIST) Court File No. CV-15-10832-00CL IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, C. C-36, AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER OF A PLAN
More informationTHE QUEEN'S BENCH WINNIPEG CENTRE. APPLICATION UNDER Queens Bench Rule 14.05(2)(c)(iv) WESTERN CANADA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, - and -
File No. CI 11-01-72733 THE QUEEN'S BENCH WINNIPEG CENTRE APPLICATION UNDER Queens Bench Rule 14.05(2)(c)(iv) BETWEEN: WESTERN CANADA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, Applicant, - and - THE GOVERNMENT OF MANITOBA,
More informationA CHANGING LANDSCAPE IN CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA (AND BEYOND)
A CHANGING LANDSCAPE IN CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA (AND BEYOND) Brad W. Dixon BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP Introduction British Columbia courts continue to grapple with efforts by plaintiffs
More informationA CLASS ACTION BLUEPRINT FOR ALBERTA
A CLASS ACTION BLUEPRINT FOR ALBERTA By William E. McNally and Barbara E. Cotton 1 2 Interesting things have been happening in Alberta recently regarding class action proceedings. Alberta is handicapped
More informationCITATION: Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters v. Ontario, 2015 ONSC 7969 COURT FILE NO.: 318/15 DATE:
CITATION: Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters v. Ontario, 2015 ONSC 7969 COURT FILE NO.: 318/15 DATE: 20151218 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS, Applicant
More informationUniform Class Proceedings Act
8-1 Uniform Law Conference of Canada Uniform Class Proceedings Act 8-2 Table of Contents PART I: DEFINITIONS 1 Definitions PART II: CERTIFICATION 2 Plaintiff s class proceeding 3 Defendant s class proceeding
More informationIndexed As: Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. et al. Ontario Court of Appeal Hoy, A.C.J.O., Laskin and Tulloch, JJ.A. May 22, 2014.
Meredith Boucher (plaintiff/respondent) v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. and Jason Pinnock (defendants/appellants) (C56243; C56262; 2014 ONCA 419) Indexed As: Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. et al. Ontario Court
More informationArbitration Clauses in Employment Contracts
EMPLOYMENT LAW CONFERENCE 2013 PAPER 2.1 Arbitration Clauses in Employment Contracts These materials were prepared by Jennifer D. Wiegele of Kent Employment Law, Vancouver, BC, for the Continuing Legal
More informationCindy Fulawka (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Bank of Nova Scotia (defendant/appellant) (C54467; 2012 ONCA 443)
Cindy Fulawka (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Bank of Nova Scotia (defendant/appellant) (C54467; 2012 ONCA 443) Indexed As: Fulawka v. Bank of Nova Scotia Ontario Court of Appeal Winkler, C.J.O., Lang and
More informationWilman v. Northwest Territories (Financial Management Board..., 1997 CarswellNWT CarswellNWT 81, [1997] N.W.T.J. No. 17
1997 CarswellNWT 81 Northwest Territories Supreme Court Wilman v. Northwest Territories (Financial Management Board Secretariat) David Wilman, Applicant and The Commissioner of the Northwest Territories
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
On appeal from the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Queen s Bench dated October 13, 2017 Date: 20180411 Docket: BK 16-01-04099 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Toyota Credit Canada Inc. v. MNP Ltd.
More informationProtecting Freedom of Expression in Public Debate: Anti-SLAPP legislation
Protecting Freedom of Expression in Public Debate: Anti-SLAPP legislation by Chris Wullum Tapper Cuddy LLP 1000-330 St. Mary Avenue Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 3Z5 cwullum@tappercuddy.com Background A strategic
More informationCourt of Appeal on Smith v. Inco: Rylands v. Fletcher Revisited By Michael S. Hebert and Cheryl Gerhardt McLuckie*
Court of Appeal on Smith v. Inco: Rylands v. Fletcher Revisited By Michael S. Hebert and Cheryl Gerhardt McLuckie* In October 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its much anticipated decision in
More information2007 BCSC 569 Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd. et al. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd.
2007 BCSC 569 Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd. et al IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd. et al, 2007 BCSC 569 Date: 20070426 Docket: S056479 Registry: Vancouver
More informationSUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL. A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment
1 SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of summary judgment is to dispose
More informationand THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA AND CLIFFS NATURAL RESOURCES INC ORDER
Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20130315 Docket: T-1820-11 Ottawa, Ontario, March 15, 2013 PRESENT: Madam Prothonotary Aronovitch BETWEEN: MARTEN FALLS FIRST NATION, WEBEQUIE FIRST NATION, NIBINAMIK
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN BRIAN MOORE. And PUBLIC SERVICES CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2010-03257 BETWEEN BRIAN MOORE Claimant And PUBLIC SERVICES CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Defendant Before the Honourable
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: Kobi s Auto Ltd v 5174245 Manitoba Ltd et al, Date: 20181211 2018 MBCA 134 Docket: AI17-30-08970 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice Michel A. Monnin Mr. Justice Christopher
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (COMMERCIAL LIST) IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c.
Court File No.: CV-10-8944-00CL ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (COMMERCIAL LIST) IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED APPLICATION OF TERRESTAR NETWORKS
More informationCraig T. Lockwood, for the Defendants B.C. Ltd. o/a Canada Drives and o/a GDC Auto and Cody Green REASONS FOR DECISION
CITATION: Kings Auto Ltd. v. Torstar Corporation, 2018 ONSC 2451 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-551919CP DATE: 20180418 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: KINGS AUTO LTD. and SAPNA INC., Plaintiffs
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND SUMAIR MOHAN
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No: 45 of 2008 BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION APPELLANTS AND SUMAIR MOHAN RESPONDENT PANEL: A. Mendonça,
More information