Bhatti v. Yellow Cab Company Ltd.
Yellow Cab Company Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

R.M. Gagnon

Y. Wong

Kulwant Sahota
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

R.M. Gagnon

Y. Wong

Kulwinder Saini
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

R.M. Gagnon

Y. Wong

Satnam Jaswal
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

R.M. Gagnon

Y. Wong

Nirmaljit Sidhu
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

R.M. Gagnon

Y. Wong

Rajesh Thakur
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

R.M. Gagnon

Y. Wong

Charanjit Dass
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

R.M. Gagnon

Y. Wong

Amarjit Singh Bhatti
Law Firm / Organization
Badh & Rejminiak LLP
Kuldeep Singh Bhatti
Law Firm / Organization
Badh & Rejminiak LLP

Case Overview:
Amarjit Singh Bhatti and Kuldeep Singh Bhatti (petitioners) brought claims against Yellow Cab Company Ltd. and several directors, alleging violations of corporate governance rules related to share transfers.

Legal Issues:
The petitioners argued that Yellow Cab directors, including Kulwant Sahota and Kulwinder Saini, breached Article 4.1(d) of the company’s articles by allowing share transfers without following required procedures. They claimed this breach constituted a failure in directors' fiduciary duties under Section 142(1) of the British Columbia Business Corporations Act (BCA) and that these actions were oppressive under Section 227 of the BCA. They also sought permission for a derivative action to pursue claims on behalf of the company.

Court Findings:
Justice Latimer found that the petitioners did not prove any breach of the company’s articles or fiduciary duties by the directors. Evidence from Yellow Cab’s General Manager, Carolyn Bauer, showed that required procedures were generally followed. The court held that the petitioners failed to show they experienced direct or special harm to justify claims of oppression and failed to satisfy conditions for a derivative action under the BCA.

Conclusion and Costs:
The court dismissed the petition entirely and ordered the petitioners to pay costs to the respondents, though the judgment did not specify the exact cost amount.

Supreme Court of British Columbia
S246819
Corporate & commercial law
Respondent