Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Ownership and control of Catback Productions Incorporated and 14238761 Canada Inc. are contested, with conflicting claims regarding trust and beneficial ownership.

• The applicant seeks multiple remedies, including declarations of trust, damages, and removal of a director, based on extensive affidavit evidence containing hearsay and opinion.

• Disagreement exists over the existence and terms of an alleged verbal agreement relating to share ownership and management of Catback.

• The court identifies significant credibility issues and finds that these cannot be resolved on the existing paper record without cross-examination.

• Procedural deficiencies include failure to file a required compendium and exceeding factum page limits, hindering efficient adjudication.

• The court grants interim orders for accounting and production of records, declines to grant damages or trust declarations at this stage, and leaves costs to be determined by further submissions.

Facts of the case

Richard Berwick, as applicant, brought an application before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Rosanne Berwick, Catback Productions Incorporated, and 14238761 Canada Inc. The application was heard on November 14, 2025. The dispute involves several remedies under the Business Corporations Act, the Substitute Decisions Act, declarations of trust, declarations of fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation, or defalcation, production of records, and claims for general, punitive, aggravated, and exemplary damages. The applicant sought fourteen substantive heads of relief at this appearance.

The parties’ evidence confirms that Ms. Berwick incorporated Catback Productions Incorporated, 100 common shares were issued to Ms. Berwick, and 100 preferred shares were issued to Mr. Berwick. Ms. Berwick was made the sole director and officer of Catback. Both parties agreed that Mr. Berwick’s earnings would be deposited into Catback, his expenses would be paid through Catback, and he would be employed by Catback. However, they differ on their intentions and positions regarding the ownership of Catback, relying on an alleged verbal agreement. The applicant claims Ms. Berwick was to hold her shares in trust for him, while Ms. Berwick asserts she is the beneficial owner of the common shares, partly for services rendered.

The evidence before the court included at least nine affidavits and approximately two thousand pages of material, much of which the court found to be hearsay, opinion, or not supported by proper notices or requests under the Evidence Act. The applicant filed two factums totaling thirty-one pages, exceeding the permitted limit without leave. Neither party filed the required compendium of essential documents and evidence.

Outcome and court’s reasoning

The court determined that the issues raised could not be properly resolved on the paper record due to the volume of material, the absence of a compendium, and significant credibility issues that require cross-examination. The judge noted that claims for general, punitive, and exemplary damages are not available on an application and require a trial. The request for a declaration of a purchase money resulting trust over property held by 14238761 Canada Inc. was not granted, as the evidence was inconclusive and the issue was not suitable for determination without a full record and trial.

The court granted certain interim relief. Ms. Berwick was ordered to pass her accounts for the period during which she acted as attorney for property for Mr. Berwick, specifically from March 1, 2017, to October 2024, in accordance with section 42 of the Substitute Decisions Act. Both Ms. Berwick and Mr. Berwick were ordered to produce all books and records of the respondent corporations in their possession, control, or power, including bank statements, backup documentation, and receipts, within 60 days. The applicant was also ordered to produce such documentation on a monthly basis until the determination of the issues in the application. The court declined to remove Ms. Berwick as director and officer of the corporate respondents, finding there was little to be gained at this stage.

The balance of the relief sought by the applicant was adjourned without a return date. The court noted that a trial is required to determine the remaining issues and that the applicant should bring this conclusion to the attention of any subsequent judge.

Conclusion

The court found that there was divided success on the hearing. No monetary damages or costs were awarded at this stage. The issue of costs was left open for further written submissions by the parties, to be filed by December 8, 2025, if agreement could not be reached. The total amount ordered in favor of the successful party cannot be determined at this time, as no monetary award has been made.