One of my mentors used to say to me that to be a good lawyer
you needed to learn to skate backwards. The value of this metaphor is evident
from the Divisional Court’s decision in Basegmez[i]. 

In Basegmez: 3
partners/shareholders invested in an hotel and condo project; 1 of them was
responsible for day to day management; 
the other

read more →

Minority
shareholders in a closely held private company are not gifted with the same
powers of foresight that Steven Spielberg granted John Anderton (a.k.a Tom
Cruise) and his ‘Pre-Crime’ unit in the 2002 seminal, futuristic crime-drama ‘Minority
Report’. Set in the year 2054, the Pre-Crime unit relied upon mutated humans
called “Precogs” who had an ability to visualize the future.

read more →

Everything, as it turns out. Wilfred v. Dare is a cautionary tale of the consequences of forgetting that the OBCA does not provide for a ‘no fault’ corporate divorce. Does your shareholder agreement provide otherwise? You might want to check.

The statutory oppression remedy is the The Six Million Dollar Man of commercial litigation: a “better, stronger, faster” remedy for addressing oppressive shareholder conduct.

The Ontario Divisional Court’s decision in T. Films S.A.. v. Cinemavault Releasing International Inc., 2016 ONSC 404 [1] is a reminder that “judgment proofing” is susceptible to attack under the statutory oppression remedy.[2]

Films S.A. involved a situation where T. Films S.A. retained Cinemavault Releasing International Inc. (“CRI”) to act as exclusive distributor

read more →