Proprietary Industries Inc. v. eDispatch.com Wireless Data Inc.

Proprietary Industries Inc. v. eDispatch.com Wireless Data Inc.

Proprietary failed to plead or show facts that would establish a proprietary right in the corporate cash; Rule 46 does not extend to preserve assets where no proprietary claim exists in non-analogous cases; alternatively, balance of convenience did not favour preservation because there was no irreparable harm given the asserted burn rate and remaining cash; application dismissed.

Citation
2002 BCSC 1207
Parties
Petitioner: Proprietary Industries Inc.; Respondent: eDispatch.com Wireless Data Inc.; Respondent: Peter L. Bradshaw; Respondent: Cameron G. Belsher; Respondent: Kenneth Blakeslee; Respondent: Mitch Blumberg; Respondent: J. Kelly Edmison; Respondent: Kevin Heaney; Respondent: Stephen R. Willey
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Shareholder Oppression Petition Under Company Act S.200 / Interim Application for Preservation Order Under Rule 46
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Shareholder Oppression, Preservation Order, Rule 46, Interim Injunction, Remedies, Costs
Source Language
English
Company Law Civil Procedure Equity Shareholder Oppression Preservation Order Rule 46 Interim Injunction Remedies +1 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Proprietary Industries Inc.

Petitioner

eDispatch.com Wireless Data Inc.

Respondent

Peter L. Bradshaw

Respondent

Cameron G. Belsher

Respondent

Kenneth Blakeslee

Respondent

Mitch Blumberg

Respondent

J. Kelly Edmison

Respondent

Kevin Heaney

Respondent

Stephen R. Willey

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Shareholder Oppression Petition Under Company Act S.200 / Interim Application for Preservation Order Under Rule 46

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 46 permits preservation of corporate cash absent a proprietary claim to a specific fund
  2. 2 Whether Proprietary has shown facts that, if proven, would give it a property right in the fund (Kongrecki test)
  3. 3 Whether authorities such as Nicoll and Culos extend Rule 46 to cases like this

Ratio Decidendi

Proprietary failed to plead or show facts that would establish a proprietary right in the corporate cash; Rule 46 does not extend to preserve assets where no proprietary claim exists in non-analogous cases; alternatively, balance of convenience did not favour preservation because there was no irreparable harm given the asserted burn rate and remaining cash; application dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • eDispatch.com Wireless Data Inc. to pay Proprietary Industries Inc. costs of $500 forthwith in relation to the proceedings before Fraser J.