Consolidated Enfield Corp. v. Blair, (1996) 89 O.A.C. 183 (DC)

JudgeSteele, MacFarland and Feldman, JJ.
CourtOntario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
Case DateFebruary 08, 1996
JurisdictionOntario
Citations(1996), 89 O.A.C. 183 (DC)

Consolidated Enfield Corp. v. Blair (1996), 89 O.A.C. 183 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Consolidated Enfield Corporation (plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim (respondent in appeal)) v. Michael F. Blair (defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim (appellant))

(783/95)

Indexed As: Consolidated Enfield Corp. v. Blair

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Divisional Court

Steele, MacFarland and Feldman, JJ.

February 8, 1996.

Summary:

A shareholder in a corporation obtained an order appointing an inspector under s. 161 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act. The order provided that the corporation should pay the reasonable fees and expenses of the inspector pending further order of the court. The fees totalled approximately $900,000. The corporation moved for a final order respecting the inspector's fees. A motions judge ordered the fees to be shared equally by the shareholder and the corporation. The shareholder appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order and remitted the matter to the motions judge for determina­tion based on appropriate principles and material.

Company Law - Topic 2217

Shareholders - Shareholders' rights - Investigation of company - Inspector fees - A corporate shareholder successfully moved for an order appointing an inspector under s. 161 of the Ontario Business Cor­porations Act - The order provided that the corporation should pay the inspector's reasonable fees and expenses pending further court order - Total fees were approximately $900,000 - The corporation moved for a final order respecting the fees - The motion's judge considered the con­tents of the inspector's report and the bene­fit to each of the parties and con­cluded that the fees should be shared equally - The Ontario Divisional Court concluded that the motions judge erred in con­sidering the report's contents and bene­fit and held there were no unusual circum­stances to justify the corporation not pay­ing the fees as contemplated by s. 162(1) of the Act.

Cases Noticed:

Shell Castle Fire Place Ltd., Re (1927), 33 O.W.N. 195 (Master), refd to. [para. 3].

Clinton Knitting Co., Re, [1942] O.W.N. 174 (C.A.), consd. [para. 5].

Mexican Light & Power Co. v. Mexican Light & Power Co. (Shareholders of) (1989), 46 B.L.R. 14 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 9].

Statutes Noticed:

Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B-16, sect. 161(1), sect. 161(4) [para. 8]; sect. 162(1)(l) [paras. 8, 10].

Counsel:

Patricia Virc, for the appellant;

Michael F. Blair, appeared in person;

Dennis O'Connor, Q.C., and Christopher Bredt, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 23, 1996, before Steele, MacFarland and Feldman, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court.

The following decision was delivered by Steele, J., for the Divisional Court, and released on February 8, 1996.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Sliwinski v. Marks, (2006) 211 O.A.C. 215 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • 17 Mayo 2006
    ...- Where punitive damages awarded - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1571 ]. Cases Noticed: Consolidated Enfield Corp. v. Blair (1996), 89 O.A.C. 183; 28 O.R.(3d) 714 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. Authors and Works Noticed: Orkin, Mark M., The Law of Costs (2005 Looseleaf), s. 219.1.2 [p......
  • Lewis v. Central Credit Union Ltd., (2014) 346 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 248 (PEICA)
    • Canada
    • 8 Noviembre 2013
    ...494, refd to. [para. 74]. Sliwinski v. Marks (2006), 211 O.A.C. 215 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97]. Consolidated Enfield Corp. v. Blair (1996), 89 O.A.C. 183; 28 O.R.(3d) 714 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. Murano v. Bank of Montreal (1998), 111 O.A.C. 242; 41 O.R.(3d) 222 (C.A.), refd to. [para. ......
2 cases
  • Sliwinski v. Marks, (2006) 211 O.A.C. 215 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • 17 Mayo 2006
    ...- Where punitive damages awarded - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1571 ]. Cases Noticed: Consolidated Enfield Corp. v. Blair (1996), 89 O.A.C. 183; 28 O.R.(3d) 714 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. Authors and Works Noticed: Orkin, Mark M., The Law of Costs (2005 Looseleaf), s. 219.1.2 [p......
  • Lewis v. Central Credit Union Ltd., (2014) 346 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 248 (PEICA)
    • Canada
    • 8 Noviembre 2013
    ...494, refd to. [para. 74]. Sliwinski v. Marks (2006), 211 O.A.C. 215 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97]. Consolidated Enfield Corp. v. Blair (1996), 89 O.A.C. 183; 28 O.R.(3d) 714 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. Murano v. Bank of Montreal (1998), 111 O.A.C. 242; 41 O.R.(3d) 222 (C.A.), refd to. [para. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT