This week’s decision concerns an application for an oppression remedy: Caughlin v. Canadian Payroll Systems Inc., 2019 MBQB 6.
Caughlin … alleges that the conduct of Lyle and CPS has been oppressive and unfairly prejudicial and that there has been an unfair disregard for his interests. Caughlin seeks a remedy to address the inequitable conduct and activities of Lyle and CPS. Para. 3
As noted by Harris, J., s. 234(2) of The Corporations Act, C.C.S.M. c. C225 explains the grounds for seeking an oppression remedy, and the leading case is BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders, 2008 SCC 69.
Effective immediately, the Civil Motion Coordinator (Cheryl Laniuk) is to be contacted (phone number – 204-945-3043) regarding the scheduling of all civil motions, including those returnable on the civil uncontested list, contested motions and seized motions.
Coming into effect
This Practice Direction comes into effect immediately.
Original notice available here.
December 2018, Issue No. 86 Highlights:
The full edition is available here.
Most of the time when I see the word “bot” I think of Russian trolls influencing the U.S. election. But not this time! USA Today investigative reporter Brad Heath has created an automatic Twitter bot that follows selected U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Courts of Appeal, and Federal District Court cases of note and posts documents from new docket entries to Twitter.
In its documentation, the bot is described as follows:
The bot uses PACER RSS feeds to gather the latest filings from 74 U.S. District Courts and five federal courts of appeals and stores the docket entries in a database. It matches new filings against a preselected list of major cases, scrapes matching documents from PACER, uploads them to a DocumentCloud project and posts the results on Twitter.
You must have a PACER account in order to access the documents – we do! So if you want the latest filing on United States v. AT&T and Time Warner, or any other U.S. court case you’re watching, let us know if we can help. There may be a fee for retrieving documents.
And follow Big Cases on Twitter for up-to-date notification.
h/t to Internet for Lawyers.
There’s been a lot of new developments on the litigation front since the last update in December. Highlights from Issue No. 84, February 2018:
- Modified Test for Mandatory Interlocutory Injunction: SCC
- Public Interest Standing and Supplementing Reasons: SCC
- No Realistic Chance of Success: MBCA/MBQB
- Careless Smoking Negligent: MBQB
- Recent Flood Claims
- Further Amendments to Court of Queen’s Bench Rules
- Court of Queen’s Bench Practice Direction
- Facilitating the Management of Multi-jurisdictional Class Actions: CBA
- Recommended Reading