Claimants failed to consistently state their reasonable expectations

Claimants were both real estate agents and principals of H Inc.. Appellants claimants (collectively “Claimants”), appealed disallowance of claims in bankruptcy proposal proceeding of debtor. Appeal dismissed. Claimants have failed to establish proprietary interest in property either by way of express trust or constructive trust, such that property claim was neither valid nor enforceable. Further, claimants have failed to prove that debtor acted in a manner that was oppressive to their interests such that litigation claim was neither valid nor enforceable. Claimants have failed to consistently state their reasonable expectations. They have failed to explain how this remedy was connected to reasonable expectations pursuant to agreement or alleged oppressive conduct of debtor. Claimants’ damages would only be based on difference between price in agreement and price the property ultimately sold for if agreement had been for purchase of property. There was no evidence of this. In fact, claimants concluded agreement to purchase 100 percent of C’s shares in debtor, not property. If oppressive conduct was found, which it was not, damages would appropriately flow from failed agreement, and would reflect impact of oppressive conduct on price of debtor’s shares.

Hussaini v. Crowe Soberman Inc. (2019), 2019 CarswellOnt 1337, 2019 ONSC 642, V.R. Chiappetta J. (Ont. S.C.J. [Commercial List]).