The plane was shot down in 2020, killing all passengers, including numerous Canadians
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has dismissed an application brought by a member of the Association of Families of Flight PS752 Victims who claimed the organization acted oppressively by refusing to provide financial support to families and fund his civil litigation against Iran.
The court ruled that the association’s refusal to provide financial aid or support his civil litigation was reasonable under its mandate and protected by the business judgment rule.
The case arose following the January 2020 downing of Ukraine Airlines Flight PS752, which killed all passengers, including numerous Canadian citizens and residents. The applicant, who lost a son in the tragedy, argued the association violated reasonable expectations under its mandate by not offering financial assistance to families or supporting his efforts to enforce a $107 million judgment awarded in a separate civil case.
The applicant sought remedies under the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act (CNCA), including full financial disclosures, production of meeting minutes, and an order requiring the association to convene a special meeting to discuss its objectives.
The Superior Court found no evidence that the association acted oppressively or unfairly disregarded the applicant’s interests. The court emphasized that the association’s decisions, including its interpretation of its purposes, fell within the “business judgment rule,” which protects directors’ reasonable decisions made in good faith.
The association’s stated purposes include supporting families, seeking justice, and preserving victims’ memories. While the applicant interpreted “support” as financial aid, the association maintained that its activities, such as international advocacy, memorial events, and public awareness campaigns, fulfilled this mandate. The court deferred to the association’s interpretation, noting the absence of explicit language requiring financial support in its governing documents.
The applicant also alleged misuse of funds, partisan activities, and lack of transparency, but the court found insufficient evidence to support these claims. It highlighted that the association had provided all required financial disclosures and that its expenditures, including consulting fees for advocacy work, were reasonable and aligned with its purposes.
The court dismissed concerns about the refusal to disclose the members’ register, citing a valid exemption obtained under the CNCA due to safety concerns over potential reprisals from the Iranian regime.
The court concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate any oppression or entitlement to alternative relief, including the appointment of a receiver or an injunction.
