Djukastein v. Contech Electronics Inc.

Djukastein v. Contech Electronics Inc.

The application for a stay was dismissed because the essential dispute concerned the directors' use of corporate powers alleged to be oppressive under s.227 BCA, the relief sought (including restoration of control) is in part beyond the powers of an arbitrator and requires prompt court resolution, so arbitration is not appropriate for the core issues in this case.

Citation
2007 BCSC 1638
Parties
Petitioner: Erik Djukastein; Respondent: Contech Electronics Inc.; Respondent: Mark Grambart; Respondent: Lisa Grambart; Respondent: Carol Burman
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Oppression Action Under S.227 Business Corporations Act / Application for Stay of Proceedings on Arbitration Grounds; Oral Ruling
Outcome
Application for stay dismissed
Legal Topics
Shareholder Oppression, Stay of Proceedings, Arbitrability, Choice of Forum Clause, Directors' Powers, Shareholders' Agreement Interpretation
Source Language
English
Corporate Law Arbitration Contracts Civil Procedure Employment Law Shareholder Oppression Stay of Proceedings Arbitrability +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Erik Djukastein

Petitioner

Contech Electronics Inc.

Respondent

Mark Grambart

Respondent

Lisa Grambart

Respondent

Carol Burman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Oppression Action Under S.227 Business Corporations Act / Application for Stay of Proceedings on Arbitration Grounds; Oral Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dispute is subject to mandatory arbitration under the parties' agreements
  2. 2 Whether an arbitrator can grant the statutory remedies available under s.227 of the Business Corporations Act
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner's unilateral termination of the CEO's employment was effective or a matter for arbitration

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay was dismissed because the essential dispute concerned the directors' use of corporate powers alleged to be oppressive under s.227 BCA, the relief sought (including restoration of control) is in part beyond the powers of an arbitrator and requires prompt court resolution, so arbitration is not appropriate for the core issues in this case.

Court Disposition

Application for stay dismissed

Orders

  • Application for a stay of proceedings dismissed.
  • Costs in the cause.