Respondent blatantly preferred his family’s interests to those of corporation

Ontario civil | Business Associations | Specific matters of corporate organization | Shareholders

Deceased and respondent began building homes and founded DBG Inc. was founded as vehicle to house their joint business venture. Since deceased’s death, operations of DBG Inc. had been strictly family affair with respondent. Deceased entered into memorandum of agreement to deal with succession issues. Deceased’s wife’s untimely death ten days after left estate’s cash-flow insolvent from very beginning and estate was required to borrow funds to make cash contribution to DBG Inc.. DBG Inc. purported to assume W Inc.’s shareholders loan payable to estate. GD Inc. was incorporated in 2016 to pursue acquisition of property and respondents were sole officers and directors. Estate brought oppression application regarding loan and acquisition of property. Application granted. There was breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing. Deceased chose to place great deal of trust in his business partner to protect interests of his estate within their joint business enterprise and time demonstrated that trust to have been misplaced. Respondent blatantly preferred his family’s interests to those of corporation as whole and other individual respondents had utterly failed to act independently and could not be relied upon as guarantors. Idea that it would somehow be inappropriate for DBG Inc. to pursue “apartment-style” development despite cash hoard that was years in building while new, freshly-incorporated company funded by DBG Inc. could do so, using DBG’s employees and facilities beggared belief. Selfdealing and breach of fiduciary duty occurring in connection with property resulted in casual appropriation to benefit of respondents of almost half of cash reserves of DBG Inc. and appropriation to respondents of only acquisition undertaken during eight years that earnings have been banked and reserves built up for stated purpose of undertaking acquisition.

Gambin Estate v. Di Battista Gambin Developments Limited (2018), 2018 CarswellOnt 13727, 2018 ONSC 4905, S.F. Dunphy J. (Ont. S.C.J.).

Free newsletter

Our daily newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please complete the form below and click on subscribe for daily newsletters from Law Times.

Recent articles & video

Province’s auto insurance plan deemed problematic by lawyers

Ontario Human Rights Commission calls on police to address racial profiling

Cassels Brock’s Noble Chummar reappointed to LCBO

Ford government’s cuts to Toronto city council ruled constitutional

Histories of Canadian law and Métis people are entwined, says Jean Teillet

More women are on TSX company boards - but there’s slow progress to the C-Suite, says Osler

Most Read Articles

Ontario court rules cap on general damages does not apply to sexual abuse

Man discharged from his fourth bankruptcy

Ontario law firms targeted by divorce settlement fraud attempts

Ford government’s cuts to Toronto city council ruled constitutional