Sanovest Holdings Ltd. v. Matthews
The Equitable Compensation Claim was not struck: it is not plain and obvious that the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action because the interpretive question on the scope of s.150(2)(c) is complex, there is no definitive authority precluding an equitable compensation remedy under the disclosable interest regime, factual findings (including on profits and reliance on the settlement holdback) are required, and striking the claim would risk defeating the remedial and deterrence purposes of the BCA and equitable remedies; accordingly the Rule 9-5(1)(a) application is dismissed.
Source excerpt
- Disclosable interests (bca part 5)
- Derivative actions and leave requirements
- Equitable compensation
- Accounting for profits
- Oppression remedies
- Rule 9-5 striking pleadings