1261271 B.C. Ltd. v. Hanover PV Limited Partnership
1261271 B.C. Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
McMillan LLP
Lawyer(s)

Jeffrey Levine

Hanover PV Limited Partnership
Law Firm / Organization
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Solblack SFN Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Minten SFN Limited Partnership
Law Firm / Organization
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
7550 LaSalle Limited Partnership
Law Firm / Organization
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
5868 Orr Lake Limited Partnership
Law Firm / Organization
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Boost Power II Limited Partnership
Law Firm / Organization
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Enviro Park Solar Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Hay Bay Solar LP
Law Firm / Organization
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Great West Energy Limited Partnership
Law Firm / Organization
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Great West Energy II Limited Partnership
Law Firm / Organization
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Hanover PV GP Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Minten SFN GP Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
7550 LaSalle GP Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
5868 Orr Lake GP Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Boost Power II GP Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Hay Bay GP Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Greatwest Energy GP Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Great West Energy II GP Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

Summary: 1261271 B.C. Ltd. appealed against a lower court decision which found that the security interest it granted was oppressive towards the respondents. The court of appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge’s findings and reasoning.

Key Points:

  • Oppression Remedy: The appeal centered on whether the security interest granted by 1261271 B.C. Ltd. was oppressive to the respondents. The application judge found it to be oppressive as it was granted in self-interest and with an intent to prejudice the respondents.
  • Reasonable Expectations: The application judge noted that the respondents had set clear expectations that 1261271 B.C. Ltd.'s predecessor did not have unrestricted freedom regarding its actions with the respondent entities. These expectations were considered reasonable based on prior agreements and court orders.
  • Court's Decision: The court of appeal found no reversible errors in the application judge's decision. It highlighted that the respondents' reasonable expectations were unfairly disregarded by the corporate conduct of 1261271 B.C. Ltd.

Outcome: The appeal was dismissed with a cost award of $15,000, including HST and disbursements, to the respondents. The court’s decision underscores the importance of respecting the reasonable expectations and interests of business partners in corporate conduct.

Court of Appeal for Ontario
COA-23-CV-0723
Corporate & commercial law
$ 15,000
Respondent