David Scrimshaw's Library tagged director → View Popular

Filter:
All
Annotated

05 Nov 09

Chisum Log Homes & Lumber Ltd. v. Investment Saskatchewan Inc., 2007 SKQB 368 (CanLII)

Section 219 of The Business Corporations Act does not establish a limitation period. Rather it permits actions to be brought against dissolved companies without the necessity of reviving those companies.

www.canlii.org/...2007skqb368.html - Preview

Law corporate director creditor

Danylchuk et al. v. Wolinsky et al. and Feierstein and Fishman Medical Corporation v. Wolinsky et al., 2007 MBQB 65 (CanLII)

since the directors have been sued in their personal capacity it is irrelevant whether or not the corporation was in existence at the time of the application

www.canlii.org/...2007mbqb65.html - Preview

Law corporate Director oppression Creditor

04 Nov 09

Peoples Department Stores Inc. (Trustee of) v. Wise, 2004 SCC 68, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 461

directors owe a duty of care to creditors, but that duty does not rise to a fiduciary duty

www.canlii.org/...2004scc68.html - Preview

Law corporate oppression Creditor Fiduciary Director

Section 241 of
the CBCA provides a possible mechanism for creditors to protect their interests
from the prejudicial conduct of directors. In our view, the availability
of such a broad oppression remedy undermines any perceived need to extend the
fiduciary duty imposed on directors by s. 122(1)(a) of the CBCA to
include creditors

22 Oct 09

Pozzebon v. The Queen, 1998 CanLII 490 (T.C.C.)

www.canlii.org/...1998canlii490.html - Preview

Law corporation liability Director fine

30 Jul 09

Crestohl v. B'Nai B'Rith Canada, 2009 CanLII 39484 (ON S.C.)

Absent allegations which fit within the categories described above, officers or employees of limited companies are protected from personal liability unless it can be shown that their actions are themselves tortuous or exhibit a separate identity or interest from that of the company so as to make the act or conduct complained of their own

www.canlii.org/...2009canlii39484.html - Preview

Law Torts corporation Director

In this pleading, there
is nothing that would suggest that the individual defendants acted in a manner
distinct from that of the corporation or that their actions were their own, as
opposed to being done on behalf of the corporation

17 Feb 09

Danso-Coffey v. Ontario, 2009 CanLII 4852 (ON S.C.)

Section 20 authorizes the Minister of Consumer and Business Services to issue a certificate or to certify any fact in the CIA. Subsection 20(2) provides that such a certificate shall be received in evidence in proceedings as proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts so certified.

www.canlii.org/...2009canlii4852.html - Preview

Law RSTA Director

there are two requirements that must be met in order to become a director of an
Ontario corporation. They are contained in sections 119(4) and 119(9) of the
Business Corporations Act R.S.O. 1990, c.
B-16. Section 119(4) of that Act states that the directors of a corporation shall be elected by
the shareholders:
Section 119(9) of the Act sets out the requirement that an individual director
must, in order to become a director, provide her consent, in writing, to her
appointment:
2 more annotations...
- Cheong makes it clear that the Superior Court has no inherent
  jurisdiction to extend the time limitations in the RSTA in the face of a
  comprehensive statutory appeal procedure.
- The statutory scheme in sections 24 and 25 of the RSTA does not
  countenance the defence that I have found to be factually established before
  this court that she was never a director. In these unusual circumstances,
  it must follow that the applicant cannot be lawfully assessed as a director
  under section 43 of the RTSA, nor can she be said to have any due
  diligence obligation under section 43(3) of the Act

15 Oct 08

College of Optometrists of Ontario v. SHS Optical Ltd., 2008 ONCA 685 (CanLII)

Bruce Bergez gives unlicensed lens prescriptions in flagrant violation of a court order and represents himself in Court. These choices cost him and his wife $1 million.

www.canlii.org/...2008onca685.html - Preview

Law Contempt Criminal Procedure Director Liability Self-Representation

Great Glasses also offers free “eye tests” to its customers
In Davids v.
Davids, [1999] O.J.
No. 3930, this Court said at para. 36:

[36] … The fairness of this trial is not
measured by comparing the appellant’s conduct of his own case with the conduct
of that case by a competent lawyer. If that were the measure of fairness, trial
judges could only require persons to proceed to trial without counsel in those
rare cases where an unrepresented person could present his or her case as
effectively as counsel. Fairness does not demand that the unrepresented litigant
be able to present his case as effectively as a competent lawyer. Rather, it
demands that he have a fair opportunity to present his case to the best of his
ability. Nor does fairness dictate that the unrepresented litigant have a
lawyer’s familiarity with procedures and forensic tactics.
10 more annotations...
- [58]
  The presiding judge must not appear to assume (or in fact
  assume) the role of counsel for the self-represented litigant
- 68]
  The principal distinguishing feature between civil and
  criminal contempt, in other words what converts civil to criminal contempt, is
  the element of public defiance of the court’s process in a way calculated to
  lessen societal respect for the courts
- To establish criminal contempt the Crown must prove that the accused
  defied or disobeyed a court order in a public way (the actus reus), with
  intent, knowledge or recklessness as to the fact that the public disobedience
  will tend to depreciate the authority of the court (the mens rea). The
  Crown must prove these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- While publicity is required for the offence, a civil contempt is not converted
  to a criminal contempt merely because it attracts publicity, as the union
  contends, but rather because it constitutes a public act of defiance of the
  court in circumstances where the accused knew, intended or was reckless as to
  the fact that the act would publicly bring the court into contempt
- [73]
  As a general rule, the procedure followed on contempt
  hearings reflects the burden of proof imposed and the essential elements of
  contempt. The prosecutor’s case on liability proceeds first, thereafter any
  defence offered. Where liability is established, the contemnor is usually
  offered an opportunity to purge his or her contempt before the penalty or
  punishment phase of proceedings begins.
- [74]
  The form of the hearing, to some extent at least, lies
  within the discretion of the judge presiding. While form should not be permitted
  to triumph over substance, a consolidated hearing, in other words, a proceeding
  that considers both liability and penalty in the same hearing, may cause
  unfairness or be infected with legal error to such an extent to require a new
  hearing
- There is no per se rule that a hearing must proceed in two steps,
  liability first, then penalty if liability has been established
- That a two-step procedure is preferable in most cases where liability is in
  issue can scarcely be disputed. Likewise, most would agree that the two-step
  procedure ensures that evidence or other material irrelevant to liability, but
  relevant to penalty, does not contaminate the determination of liability. In our
  imperfect world, we are left to assess the effect of a flawed procedure on the
  decision about liability.
- may well be that the director or officer could be held in contempt, even though
  his role in the matter was purely passive:
- Further, the violation of the injunction may give rise in some cases to a
  presumption that the director or officer did or failed to do something that
  caused the breach, and may put that officer or director on his defence.