2.22: Self-represented litigants
6.25: Preserving or protecting property or its value

Case Summary

Solomon, the individual Defendant, was an inventor who had access to a new product and associated technologies. Solomon approached the Plaintiff, and reached an oral agreement that the parties would be shareholders in a new corporation where the Plaintiff would provide funding and Solomon would provide expertise, equipment and intellectual property. The new corporation was incorporated and controlled by Solomon. It had not yet provided any financial return when the relationship between the parties broke down. The Applicant claimed that Solomon engaged in various forms of self-dealing, and commenced an Action for oppression under the Alberta Business Corporations Act, RSA 2000, c B-9.

Preliminarily, the Court noted that there were several corporate Respondents, each of which was linked to Solomon. None of the Respondents was currently represented by counsel, and only Solomon appeared at the Application. Justice Renke stated that, although Solomon was entitled to represent himself, he was not allowed to represent the corporate Respondents. Under Rule 2.22, an “individual” may be self-represented in the superior Courts. However, other types of litigants, including corporations, must be represented by counsel. Therefore, Solomon was not entitled to represent the corporate Respondents.

Renke J. considered the substance of the Application, and concluded that Solomon had engaged in conduct that was oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly disregarded the interests of the Applicant. Among other things, the Court granted preservation Orders under Rule 6.25(1) against Solomon and the corporate Respondents, whereby the Plaintiff’s personal property would be protected.

View CanLII Details