An Ontario court has restored a former Olympic gymnast's $7,500 monthly salary to help preserve a Brampton gymnastics business while its two equal shareholders fight over its future.
In Delduca v. Peters, 2026 ONSC 5810, Justice McGee varied an interim payment freeze to authorize compensation for Bradley Peters' work operating Gymnastic Giants Brampton Inc. The October 14 ruling makes the salary retroactive to March 10, 2026, with accrued authorized payments payable immediately.
The decision does not fix a lump-sum arrears award or resolve the underlying shareholder claims. It restores pay for services while expressly preserving Francisco Ricardo Delduca's remedies concerning his own lost salary and the parties' claims and counterclaims.
Preserving the business during a dispute
Peters founded the business in 1995 and is responsible for its day-to-day operations, management and coaching. He and Delduca each own half its shares. Both had been receiving $7,500 monthly salaries before their business relationship broke down.
Delduca began the application in February 2026 after being excluded from the business. He seeks oppression and other remedies. A March 10 interim order secured the corporation's finances and prohibited payments to either shareholder pending a hearing on the merits, while allowing specified ordinary business payments.
An independent monitor was appointed on March 16. The standstill arrangements were intended to preserve the business's assets. The reasons say the main application was scheduled for November 25, 2026; this salary motion did not decide it.
A monitor could not replace the operator
Peters argued that continuing to work without pay was unsustainable and gave the corporation and its shareholders the benefit of his labour for free. Financial monitoring, he submitted, did not cover the operational work of managing the gym and supervising its coaches, employees and participants.
Delduca argued that the earlier order plainly barred salaries for both men and should remain unchanged until the main hearing. If Peters needed funds, Delduca proposed an equal distribution from corporate savings to both shareholders instead.
McGee was not persuaded that new facts justified varying the order: appointment of a monitor had already been contemplated, and the main hearing remained scheduled within nine months of the original order. The court nevertheless found that business preservation supported restoring Peters' employment income.
The monitor would continue financial oversight, but Peters' specialized gymnastics experience and ongoing management, teaching and coaching were essential to operations. Both shareholders benefited from that work. Requiring him to continue indefinitely without compensation risked defeating the very purpose of the payment freeze.
The judge warned that the business would fail if Peters had to earn income elsewhere. The ruling addressed that risk; it did not report that the gym had closed or guarantee its future survival.
Salary relief, not a shareholder payout
The court drew on its broad remedial authority in corporate oppression proceedings and the shareholders' reasonable expectations arising from the business's structure, agreements, practices and relationships. McGee found they should reasonably expect its key employee to receive his ordinary compensation.
The motion did not independently determine that $7,500 was the market value of Peters' services. That question had not been raised for determination, and the judge left it available for the hearing judge if it became an issue.
The order expressly classifies the authorized payments as remuneration for services to the company, rather than dividends, shareholder distributions, advances or shareholder-loan payments. Peters' salary was reinstated pending final determination or resolution of the dispute, not as a final finding that either shareholder had committed oppression.
Evidence limits and costs
Delduca's 254-page responding document was undated and unsworn. Its California notarial acknowledgement verified identity and execution, not compliance with Ontario affidavit requirements. McGee did not admit it as affidavit evidence, but still considered the submissions made by Delduca's agent counsel.
The judge recognized that Delduca had also lost salary and might have a claim concerning that loss. Those remedies remain expressly preserved. Separately from the corporation's salary obligation, Delduca was ordered to pay Peters $2,712 in motion costs, including HST, within 30 days.
