Law360 Canada ( March 20, 2026, 9:37 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the wife and the family company, 1225046 Ontario Inc. (122), from a partial determination of competing applications. The husband and the parties’ two adult sons asserted that 122 was incorporated in 1997 with the husband as sole shareholder and that in 2000 the wife and sons were each issued 1,000 common shares. The wife maintained that she and the husband had always been the only shareholders. Each side alleged that the other produced fraudulent or suspect corporate documents. The husband and sons requisitioned a shareholders’ meeting to remove the wife as director, asserting mismanagement. The wife challenged the validity of the meeting and claimed she and the husband alone were shareholders. The parties also disputed beneficial ownership of the Alliston property, with the wife asserting she was the sole beneficial owner and the sons claiming it was a gift to them. The judge resolved only two issues, being the share structure of 122 and the validity of the shareholders’ meeting, finding each family member held 25 per cent of the shares, validating the June 28, 2022, meeting, and declaring the sons sole beneficial owners of the Alliston property. On appeal, the wife argued the judge erred in agreeing to determine only part of the applications, in making palpable and overriding factual and credibility errors regarding the share structure, in validating a meeting that was called for an improper purpose, and in failing to apply the presumption of resulting trust to the Alliston property. The husband and sons argued the appeal was in the wrong court, that the judge properly heard the matter on a partial basis, and that her factual and legal determinations were correct....