Can a plaintiff claim damages for wrongful termination and damages equivalent to 2 years notice period?

The plaintiff claims damages for wrongful termination and alleges that damages equivalent to a 2-year notice period are appropriate. Applying the Court of Appeal majority decision in Gryba v. Moneta Porcupine Mines Ltd.[1], it is at least arguable that the applicable shareholders’ agreements must be read as contemplating a lawful termination and if the plaintiff is able to establish a wrongful termination, then the shares could be valued, sold and purchased after the lawful termination date. If the plaintiff were fully successful in his action, the shares could be valued as at June 22, 2002. In addition, the shareholders’ agreements are susceptible of two interpretations. The defendants maintain that the plaintiff ceased to be a shareholder two months after his termination. The plaintiff submits that he only ceases to be a shareholder if he has been paid for the shares. The plaintiff states that he has not been paid and is still a shareholder and entitled to financial statements. If the plaintiff is correct, he would be entitled to the financial statements requested until paid but based on his pleadings, only the financial statements up to and including the fiscal year ending May 31, 2002 would be relevant.