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
The court found oppressive conduct in the removal of a shareholder-director-employee before the parties’ roles were clarified, and ordered a buyout at fair market value without a minority discount.
The court found oppression in Teknocan’s affairs, ordered a buyout of Mirage’s shares, continued injunction relief, appointed an interim receiver, and awarded special costs.
The court found four related BC actions arose from the same factual matrix and ordered one action converted from a petition, one action consolidated, and all three tried together.
The court granted a just and equitable winding-up declaration and ordered a shotgun share sale of VanEx, with the petitioner to make the first offer.
The court declined to compel a closely held corporation to retain counsel, but imposed an interim stay until the plaintiff discloses its ownership structure.
The court ordered further and better answers to interrogatories, finding Yen had not made reasonable inquiries and must use records in his possession or control.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed an oppression appeal arising from a failed corporate reorganization and termination of management services.
The court refused to order the DNG companies to pay for an audit, but required disclosure and cooperation if the petitioner pays for it himself.
The proposed amendments relating to the failed DNS transaction were refused because they did not disclose a justiciable issue: the transaction never closed, there is no live controversy or direct remedy arising from it, and declaratory relief regarding a moot transaction would have no practical utility; therefore those amendments are not permitted. The punitive damages amendment was left undecided for parties to address; costs were awarded to the Main Defendants.
Source excerpt
On the balance of probabilities the applicant established she is acting in good faith and the proposed derivative action appears to be in the interests of Meadowbrook and Pleasant Valley because uncontested and persuasive evidence shows serious financial deterioration, unpaid statutory remittances, regulatory enforcement and a credible risk of imminent company failure; the low threshold for arguability at the leave stage is met and the potential benefit of rescuing the companies outweighs the costs of litigation.
Source excerpt
Explore more
