Alacoque v. Alacoque, (2010) 308 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 136 (NLTD(G))

• Judge: Hall, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
• Case Date: November 24, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2010), 308 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 136 (NLTD(G))

Alacoque v. Alacoque (2010), 308 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 136 (NLTD(G));

    958 A.P.R. 136

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. DE.001

Ann Marie Alacoque (applicant) v. Hubert Alacoque (respondent)

(201001G4177; 2010 NLTD(G) 180)

Indexed As: Alacoque v. Alacoque

Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court

Trial Division (General)

Hall, J.

November 30, 2010.

Summary:

The wife and the husband were equal shareholders in the company Pit Crew. The husband was chairman. The wife was president. Pit Crew operated on premises owned by NERL, a company controlled by the husband. The parties' marriage broke down. The wife had a Pit Crew shareholders' resolution adopted to, purportedly, remove the husband as director of Pit Crew and revoke his signing authority. She applied for an order declaring the resolution valid.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), in a decision rendered on September 9, 2010 and reported 305 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 293; 948 A.P.R. 293, allowed the application. On November 16, 2010, the husband obtained possession of the premises, purportedly on behalf of NERL. The wife applied for an interlocutory injunction to allow Pit Crew to occupy the premises and remove the husband from them and Pit Crew's operations. Other relief sought included an accounting and costs on a solicitor and client basis.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), dismissed the application because the proper parties were not before it. The real protagonists were Pit Crew and NERL and the main issue was that "a lease between the parties is reasonable". Even if Pit Crew and NERL were before the court, the court would not have allowed the application.

Injunctions - Topic 1663

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Undertaking as to damages - When undertaking required (incl. deemed undertaking) - [See Injunctions - Topic 1802 ].

Injunctions - Topic 1802

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Requirement of irreparable injury - What constitutes - The wife and the husband were equal shareholders in the company Pit Crew - Pit Crew operated on premises owned by NERL, a company controlled by the husband - There was no formal lease between Pit Crew and NERL but Pit Crew made payments to NERL to cover NERL's mortgage payments for the premises - After judicial validation of a Pit Crew shareholders' resolution that removed the husband as director of Pit Crew and revoked his signing authority, the husband, acting purportedly on behalf of NERL, obtained possession of the premises - The wife applied for an interlocutory injunction to allow Pit Crew to occupy the premises and remove the husband from them and Pit Crew's operations - The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), dismissed the application because the proper parties were not before it - The real protagonists were Pit Crew and NERL and the main issue was that "a lease between the parties is reasonable" - Even if Pit Crew and NERL were before the court, the court would not have allowed the application, absent irreparable harm and an undertaking as to damages - Given the lack of response from the wife, through Pit Crew, to the demands of NERL for a lease, it was difficult to see her as other than authoring her own problems - Efforts to obtain a lease were to be expected - The notice to quit given to NERL by Pit Crew was not in and of itself objectionable - See paragraphs 10 to 22.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 9362

Practice - Actions - Injunctions - [See Injunctions - Topic 1802 ].

Practice - Topic 230

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Shareholders - [See Injunctions - Topic 1802 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hurley v. Slate Ventures Inc. (1996), 136 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 341; 423 A.P.R. 341 (Nfld. T.D.), consd. [para. 12].

Counsel:

Nicholas J.G. Avis, Q.C., for the applicant;

Robert J. Hickey, for the respondent.

This application was heard at St. John's, NL, on November 24, 2010, by Hall, J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), who delivered the following decision on November 30, 2010.