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 firm’s team of Eric Grigg, Kyle MacLean, Jeff Van Bakel, and Jim LeBer will be teaching a day-long workshop at the Ontario Road Builders Association annual “Road Building Academy” in Toronto on Tuesday February 27th. The workshop is principally focused upon contractor’s strategies for dealing with the Ministry of

read more →

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 →