Khan v. 1791450 Ontario Incorporated, 2012 ONCA 167 (CanLII)

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Khan v. 1791450 Ontario Incorporated, 2012 ONCA 167

DATE: 20120316

DOCKET: C53580

Feldman and Hoy JJ.A. and Spence J. (Ad Hoc)

BETWEEN

Asaad Khan as Director of 1791450 Ontario Incorporated and Assad Khan Personally and Saida Khan

Appellants (Respondents)

and

1791450 Ontario Incorporated and Sharjeel Khan Shareholder and Sharjeel Khan as Director of 1791450 Ontario Incorporated

Respondents (Applicants)

R. Matthew Barteaux, for the appellants

Anser Farooq and H. Syed, for the respondents

Heard and released orally:  February 17, 2012

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Lorna-Lee Snowie of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 18, 2011.

ENDORSEMENT

[1]               The preliminary issue before the court is whether the jurisdiction to hear the appeal lies with this court or the Divisional Court. Section 255 of the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.B.16, (the “OBCA”)  provides:

         An appeal lies to the Divisional Court from any order made by the court under this Act.

[2]               The appellant relies on the decision in Kelvin Energy v. Lee, 1992 CanLII 38 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 235 (S.C.C.) 33, as to jurisdiction in respect of orders in Canada Business Corporations Act cases. The Ontario cases dealing with the jurisdiction issue in respect of the OBCA that are relevant here – McCormick Estate (Trustee of) v. Murphy, 2005 CarswellOnt 1194, Ontario Securities Commission v. McLaughlin 2009 CarswellOnt 1749, (2009), ONCA 280, 2009 ONCA 280 (CanLII), 248 O.A.C. 54 and Amaranth LLC v. Counsel Corp., 2004 CanLII 10897 (ON CA), 2004 CarswellOnt 2026, 186 O.A.C. 395, 71 O.R. (3d) 258 – all support the conclusion that the decision not to adjourn was an order ancillary to the OBCA proceeding for an oppression remedy under s. 248. As such, it is appealable to the Divisional Court under s. 255 of the OBCA and not to this court, and cannot be heard here.

[3]               The appellant seeks an order to transfer this case to the Divisional Court, but how the appellant now proceeds must be left up to him.

[4]               Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

[5]               Costs to the respondents fixed at $15,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

“K. Feldman J.A.”

“Alexandra Hoy J.A.”

“Spence J. (ad hoc)”

Read More