Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Application for an interlocutory injunction under a restrictive covenant was dismissed. The court found a serious question to be tried, but no irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.
Appeal dismissed as abandoned after no one appeared for the corporate appellant and its authority to act in British Columbia was unclear.
Interim spousal support was ordered after the court applied s. 18 to impute corporate income from the respondent’s company and adjusted incomes for rough interim justice.
The court reapportioned family property in favor of the respondent, denied retroactive spousal support, and awarded prospective and lump sum support.
The court found the defendants breached the management agreement by misallocating funds and failing to account properly, awarding the plaintiffs $133,362.76 and transfer of the domain name.
Interim spousal support was set at $8,750 monthly, an interim property advance was refused, and disclosure of the company general ledger was ordered.
The court found no share agreement or oppression remedy, but allowed unjust enrichment and wrongful dismissal damages after rejecting summary dismissal for cause.
Court refused Mareva and preservation relief, but ordered extensive document disclosure in a dispute over an alleged unwritten partnership and profit sharing.
The court upheld share subscription agreements made with LED Medical Diagnostics Inc., rejected the company’s defence of lack of authority, and granted specific performance.
On the facts the court found Diese's principal purpose was speculative resale of real estate (an adventure in the nature of trade/active business) rather than a specified investment business deriving income from property; the Minister failed to discharge the burden to prove the principal purpose was earning income from property, therefore the appellants' losses qualify as business investment losses and assessments are to be reconsidered accordingly.
Source excerpt
Explore more
