ONTARIO – Corporation – Piercing the corporate veil. There must be a clear link between the liability the plaintiff seeks to recover by piercing the corporate veil and the wrongful conduct of the individual in control of the corporation. Even where the test to pierce the corporate veil is not met, the oppression remedy can be asserted against a director of the company if the director made unlawful and internal corporate manoeuvres against which a creditor could not protect itself that constitute oppression.

BRITISH COLUMBIA – Arbitration – Application for Stay of Court Proceedings – Whether the claims of non-signatories to shareholder agreements were subject to the arbitration clause in those agreements is a question of mixed fact and law that cannot be answered based on a superficial review of the record. It is a question to be determined by the arbitrator in the first instance.

ONTARIO – Fraudulent Conveyances – A creditor need not have been the debtor’s creditor at the time of the conveyance to bring a claim under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, RSO 1990, c F.29. If the debtor perceived a risk of claims from future creditors when it conveyed a property with the intention to evade those creditors, future creditors can bring claims under the Act.

CANADA – Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada

ONTARIO – Breach of Contract – Breach of the duty of good faith is a separate and distinct contractual breach giving rise to a claim for damages and must be pleaded. Repudiation of a contract will only be ordered in exceptional circumstances and where there has been a substantial breach of contract.

ONTARIO – Jurisdiction of Superior Court of Justice over oppression cases – The Court does not have continuing jurisdiction to set aside a final order or replace it with an order for a new valuation date. Where the Court has determined an oppression application, including the valuation date and the share value, the order is final before that Court, subject to only a very limited jurisdiction under Rule 59.06. The consequences of allowing a party to reargue a case to obtain a more favourable valuation date under Rule 59.06 would be that orders are not final.