Pereira v. TYLT Technologies Inc. 2023 Ont CA
The corporation’s founder and officer, director, and shareholder was fired by his co-founder and an outside director and removed as a director. His unvested shares were to be purchased pursuant to a shareholders’ agreement at a nominal value. Regardless of the shareholders’ agreement and that an employment agreement allowed the termination, the Court of Appeal noted that the oppression remedy, which was equitable, requires not just a legalistic analysis, but a determination of whether the actions of the majority were “fair.” The court found that the founder could reasonably expect that he would continue in his role with the corporations at least until his shares were fully vested. The court remitted the matter to be heard by way of a trial to determine whether the majority acted properly so that it was in the best interests of the corporation to divest the founder of a further role in the corporation and the unvested shares.Continue Reading >
Under s. 13(1) of the Limitations Act, the start date of a limitations period can be “refreshed” by way of an acknowledgment of liability from the debtor. The acknowledgment may be made by way of email, but must be made before the original limitation period expires. In this case, the creditor sent a statement of account, referencing a number of invoices, and asked when more payments would be forthcoming; the debtor responded, “we have obviously been having some difficulties in paying off this account. I will see what I can send you in the next week or so.” That was enough for the judge to conclude that the limitation period re-started from the date of that response and that any invoices that had not expired at that date had a new two-year limitation period.Continue Reading >
Subject to a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal is binding on that court and any lower court – until it is not. Before the Ontario Court of Appeal will overturn a prior decision of a three-person panel of that court, it will deal with the appeal by way of a five-person panel. This is what happened in Bank of Montreal v. Iskenderov 2023 ONCA 528.
In this case, husband and wife were defendants in a fraudulent conveyance action and sought, by way of a summary judgment motion, to dismiss the action on grounds that the limitation period had passed. If the applicable limitation period were the 10-year limitation pursuant to the Real Property Limitations Act (RPLA), the defendants were out of luck; if it were the two-year limitation period pursuant to the Limitations Act, 2002 (New Act), the defendants had a chance.Continue Reading >