An application for an oppression remedy is not beyond the scope of an arbitration clause in a shareholders’ agreement and will be stayed in favour of arbitration where the conduct of which the applicant complains is captured by the clause. Butt v. Express Plus Inc.,  O.J. No. 501 (S.C.J.); Kassem v. Secure Distribution Services Inc.,  O.J. No. 508 (S.C.J.).
The assignment to a creditor of a bankrupt’s cause of action by an American trustee in bankruptcy is not champertous as long as the assignment has a legitimate commercial purpose. Berry v. Cypost Corp.,  B.C.J. No. 255 (S.C.).
Where a party who breaches a contract had a variety of methods of fulfilling its contractual obligations, the least expensive method of performance will determine the measure of damages for breach of the contract. Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery Ltd. S.C.J. No. 72 (S.C.C.).
Three corporations that act in concert with one guiding mind may collectively be deemed to be the franchisor for the purpose of statutory disclosure obligations under the Ontario Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000. MAA Diners Inc. v. 3 for 1 Pizza & Wings (Canada) Inc.,2004] O.J. No. 297 (C.A.).
The purpose of a provision in a contract between a corporate executive and the corporation entitling the executive to payment in the event of a change of control of the corporation is not to provide the executive with incentive to abandon the corporation during a takeover battle but to retain loyalty to the corporation during a time of turmoil.Montreal Trust Co. of Canada v. Call-Net Enterprises Inc. O.J. No. 297 (C.A.).
The oppression remedy under s. 241(3) of the Canada Business Corporations Act is not limited to those circumstances involving complainants who are powerless minority shareholders who have been unable to use the normal corporate machinery to challenge corporate conduct. UPM-KymmeneCorp. v.UPM-KymmeneMiramichi Inc. O.J. No. 636 (C.A.).
Constructive delivery of goods to a purchaser is insufficient to deprive a subsequent purchaser of the goods which remained in the vendor’s possession of the defence set out in s. 27(1) of the Alberta Sale of Goods Act to an action for conversion brought by the first purchaser. Bartin Pipe and Piling Supply Ltd. v. Epscan Industries Inc.,  A.J. No. 126 (C.A.).
Under the Income Tax Act, the Employment Insurance Act, and the Excise Tax Act, a director of a corporation is jointly and severally liable for a corporation's failure to deduct and remit source deductions or GST.
Under the Income Tax Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Canada Pension Plan Act and the Excise Tax Act, a director of a corporation is jointly and severally liable for a corporation's failure to deduct and remit source deductions.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).