"12 I am persuaded that the plan to “uncover” Bimman’s intentions, or to put it otherwise, to entrap him, was conceived by Itkine and/or Neiman."
"Bimman was forced out of his position by the actions of the Investor Group, spearheaded by Itkine [...] To adopt the word used by Itkine [...] I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that Bimman was “stripped” of his office."
"[55] The matter did not end with the Itkine email. Unbeknownst to Bimman, the Investor Group wrote a letter, and transmitted documents allegedly in support thereof, to the Major Fraud Unit of the York Regional Police. [...] The letter concluded with what turned out to be an ill-conceived request for the laying of criminal charges against Bimman and BRESI.
[56] Nothing came out of this reportage: the Police directed the combatants to sort out their issues civilly, if not with civility. I note that the defendants did not bathe themselves in any form of glory when this event was mined by counsel for the plaintiffs in his cross-examination of the individual defendants."
"[58]
Furthermore, the explanations of the origin of this police complaint offered up by Neiman and Itkine were so far-fetched and self-serving as to colour much of the rest of their evidence. Their evidence on this point left me guessing as to what was fact and what was fiction in their testimony. These two gentlemen, as intelligent and well-schooled in business as each is, would have been better off acknowledging their mistake in undertaking and reporting unproven allegations of fraud and embezzlement and moving on with the true essence of their case."
[222]
I have not lost sight of the fact that Bimman was forced out of the management group as a result of exaggerated, if not unfounded, allegations of impropriety bordering on embezzlement. I have concluded that while Bimman’s resignation was perhaps ill-advised, the defendants, with Itkine at the helm, made his life positively miserable during this period of time. He had no alternative but to resign, if only to secure his entitlement to a healthy portion of the DMF, a negotiation which never took place, notwithstanding earlier promises from Itkine to the contrary.
Page: 61 denunciation, deterrence and retribution, once the damages for conduct in dismissal were awarded.123
[228]In my view, and not to repeat unduly what has been set out in great detail in the facts portion of this judgment, I find that the activities of Itkine and Neiman amounted to a “marked departure from ordinary standards of decent behavior.” Among other things, the conduct which forms the subject of the award of punitive damages is the following: (1) surreptitiously using the Lambert contract to pillory Bimman; (2) furthering their agenda to rid CEL of Bimman, to the point that they (unsuccessfully) attempted to engage the good offices of the local constabulary to do their bidding; and (3) in the constant harangue that filled the minutes of the shareholders meetings.
Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis
I'm asking. You might answer as well -- where does the Non for profit Act set requirements for the motion of the removal like charges or whatever shall be in the motion? If it is not in the Act, please provide other Act/Law where it would have a process (procedure) of the removal of the director of the non for profit organization.
