- within Employment and HR topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Business & Consumer Services, Insurance and Healthcare industries
Despite the circus that appeared before Justice Dietrich, including a witness who lied under oath and questionable credibility of all parties, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has provided a clear reminder that:
- Incomplete contracts can still be binding if the surrounding facts show intent;
- Oppression remedies under 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act ("OBCA") remain available if a reasonable expectation is violated through oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct; and
- Limitation periods begin when a claim is reasonably discoverable, not merely suspected.
In Shifrin v LDF Frozen Foods Inc. et al., Alexander Shifrin claimed he was a 15% shareholder in LDF Frozen Foods Inc. based on a 2014 written agreement signed by him and one of two directors, in exchange for a $100,000 investment. Although the compensation clause was left blank, the court held the contract enforceable, citing Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. v Pine Valley Enterprises Inc., and emphasizing that contractual intent must be assessed contextually – including actions taken by the parties, such as LDF's payments to Shifrin and Shifrin's continued involvement in the company.
Justice Dietrich found that Shifrin was entitled to shares, making him a proper claimant under the OBCA, and that the two-step test for oppression claims was met, as outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada in BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders .
The respondents' argument that the claim was statute barred was also rejected. The court held that, despite the lack of shareholder funds or certificate issued, Shifrin reasonably believed he was a shareholder until July 2024, when the respondents first denied it -particularly since he was allowed to act as a company representative to third parties without objection and mistakenly believed that the failure of LDF to issue share certificates was simply missing paperwork, not a denial of his existence as a shareholder.
The court ruled in Shifrin's favour, granted the declarations sought, and directed the parties to a case conference to assess damages. This case highlights that the courts will look beyond the smoke and mirrors when interpreting contracts and limitation periods.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
