Family law trial on property division, support, and parenting. The court ordered sale of the former family home, set support and security orders, and deferred business-trust division.
The court set aside an ex parte prejudgment garnishing order, finding inadequate disclosure, an arguable set-off in CCM’s favour, and that garnishment was unnecessary.
The court extended a limited preservation order over 110 Sandon Holdings Ltd. shares, rejecting claims of material non-disclosure on the ex parte application.
The motion judge did not err: the 2019 proceedings merely relitigated claims previously raised or settled in the 2006 Action, the releases signed were broad and untainted by credible evidence of fraud, the claims were statute barred under applicable limitation provisions, and Fogler Rubinoff LLP owed no duty of care to the appellants because it represented only Gus; accordingly summary judgment and dismissal were appropriate and the appeals fail.
The court dismissed a stay application because the defendants filed a substantive response before seeking arbitration under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act.
The motion judge did not err in finding genuine issues of material fact regarding duress and related matters; those disputes properly precluded summary judgment and must be resolved at trial, therefore the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondents.
The arbitration clause in the shareholders' agreement is broad and the claims pleaded by Haas are, in large part, referable to the interpretation, implementation and performance of that agreement; the motion judge erred by excluding tort and fraud claims from arbitration and failing to apply the pro-arbitration jurisprudence (including competence-competence and s.17); accordingly the court must stay the action in favour of arbitration as to defendants Gunam and Feng; the arbitration clause is not inoperable or invalid on the facts and multiplicity concerns do not outweigh the policy favoring…
Because the respondent controlled the corporate entities, failed to provide required corporate and business financial disclosure, and the evidence established diversion or withholding of funds (including significant BC deposits and shareholder transfers undertaken without the applicant's knowledge), the court drew an adverse inference and imputed the respondent's annual income at $151,000 under the Federal Child Support Guidelines (s.18/19). The court reserved property division under the Matrimonial Property Act due to inadequate disclosure but ordered disclosure, granted the divorce, set chi…