2011 NBCA 78, 2011 NBCA 78

COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK 16-11-CA MARK ROGERS (Applicant) APPELLANT MARK ROGERS (Requérant) APPELANT - and - - et - KEITH ROGERS, DAVID ROGERS, D.M.K.MARINE SERVICES LTD. and ROGERS MARINELIMITED (Respondents) RESPONDENTS KEITH ROGERS, DAVID ROGERS, D.M.K.MARINE SERVICES LTD. et ROGERS MARINELIMITED (Intimé

s) INTIMÉS Rogers v. Rogers et al., 2011 NBCA 78 Rogers c.

Rogers et autres, 2011 NBCA 78 CORAM: The Honourable Justice Robertson The Honourable Justice Bell The Honourable Justice Green CORAM : L’honorable juge Robertson L’honorable juge Bell L’honorable juge Green Appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench: December 23, 2010 Appel d’une décision de la Cour du Banc de la Reine : Le 23 décembre 2010 History of Case: Historique de la cause : Decision under appeal: 2011 NBQB 36 Décision frappée d’appel : 2011 NBQB 36 , 2011 NBBR 36 Preliminary or incidental proceedings: N/A Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : S.O.

Appeal heard: June 14, 2011 Appel entendu : Le 14 juin 2011 Judgment rendered: September 15, 2011 Jugement rendu : Le 15 septembre 2011

Counsel at hearing: For the appellant: Richard J. Scott, Q.C. For the respondents: Catherine A. Fawcett Avocats à l’audience : Pour l’appelant : Richard J. Scott, c.r. Pour les intimés : Catherine A. Fawcett THE COURT The appeal is dismissed with costs of $3,500. LA COUR L’appel est rejeté avec dépens de 3 500 $. The following is the judgment delivered by THE COURT [ 1 ] In a decision reported as Mark Rogers v. Keith Rogers, David Rogers, D.M.K.

Marine Services Ltd. and Rogers Marine Limited , 2011 NBQB 36 , 368 N.B.R. (2d) 178, the application judge dismissed the appellant’s request that the directors of the respondents, D.M.K. Marine Services Ltd. and Rogers Marine Limited, be ordered to elect him President of both companies. [ 2 ] Before the application judge, the appellant relied upon s. 172 of the Business Corporations Act , S.N.B. 1981, c. B-9.1, and paragraph 4.03(

b) of a unanimous shareholders’ agreement which are respectively set out below:

PART XV REMEDIES, OFFENCES AND PENALTIES 172 If a corporation or any director, officer, employee, agent, auditor, trustee, receiver, receiver-manager or liquidator of a corporation does not comply with this Act, the regulations, articles, by-laws, or a unanimous shareholder agreement a complainant may, in addition to any other right he has, apply to the Court for an order directing any such person to comply with, or restraining any such person from acting in breach of, any provisions thereof, and upon such application the Court may so order and make any further order it thinks fit.

PARTIE XV RECOURS, INFRACTIONS ET PEINES 172 En cas d’inobservation par la corporation ou l’un quelconque de ses administrateurs, dirigeants, employés, mandataires, vérificateurs, fiduciaires, séquestres, séquestres-gérants ou liquidateurs de la présente loi, des règlements, statuts, règlements administratifs de la corporation ou d’une convention unanime des actionnaires, un plaignant peut, en plus de ses autres droits, demander à la Cour d’ordonner à telle personne de s’y conformer, ou d’empêcher telle personne de violer l’une quelconque des dispositions des textes de loi ou documents précités et sur réception d’une telle demande, la Cour peut le lui accorder et rendre toute autre ordonnance qu’elle estime pertinente.

UNANIMOUS SHAREHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT 4.03 Directors and Officers […] (

b) Mark Rogers shall be nominated and elected as a director of each company and appointed president of each company; [ 3 ] The application judge determined he had a residual discretion to grant or deny the relief sought under s. 172, despite the clear language of the unanimous shareholders’ agreement. Counsel for the appellant agrees the judge is clothed with such a discretion; however, he contends the judge took irrelevant factors into consideration. [ 4 ] The standard of appellate review from such discretionary orders is set out by Drapeau, C.J.N.B. in Beaverbrook Canadian Foundation v.

Beaverbrook Art Gallery , 2006 NBCA 75 , 302 N.B.R. (2d) 161: […] Like any other discretionary judicial decision, it may be interfered with on appeal only if it is founded upon an error of law, an error in the application of the governing principles or a palpable and overriding error in the assessment of the evidence […] . [para 4] [ 5 ] We are satisfied the application judge did not commit an error of law, an error in the application of the governing principles, or a palpable and overriding error in his assessment of the evidence.

Accordingly, we would dismiss the appeal. [ 6 ] The appeal is dismissed with costs of $3,500. ________________________________ J.T. ROBERTSON, J.A. ________________________________ B. RICHARD BELL, J.A. ________________________________

BRADLEY V. GREEN, J.A.