Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL. JOHN McGOWAN and CAROLYN McGOWAN THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA
|
|
- Tamsyn Gallagher
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: McGowan v. Bank of Nova Scotia 2011 PECA 20 Date: Docket: S1-CA-1202 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: JOHN McGOWAN and CAROLYN McGOWAN THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA APPELLANT RESPONDENT Before: Justice John A. McQuaid Justice Gordon L. Campbell Justice Wayne D. Cheverie Appearances: Ian W.H. Bailey, counsel for the Appellant Gary G. Demeulenaere, counsel for the Respondent Place and Date of Hearing Place and Date of Judgment Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island November 14, 2011 Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island December 14, 2011 Written Reasons by: Justice John A. McQuaid Concurred in by: Justice Gordon L. Campbell Justice Wayne D. Cheverie
2 Page: 2 PRACTICE Pleadings - striking out pleadings The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the order of the motions judge that the appellants statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. COMPANY LAW - NATURE OF CORPORATIONS - Lifting the corporate veil - shareholders, derivative and personal actions against a third party The Court of Appeal confirmed the order of the motions judge that the appellants statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the respondent either by way of a derivative action or a personal action. TORTS - Negligence - Duty of Care, Particular Relationships The Court of Appeal also confirmed the order of the motions judge that the appellants statement of claim did not allege facts which disclosed that the respondent owed a duty of care to the appellants as shareholders of the corporation. Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: Hercules Management Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 165; Houle v. Canadian National Bank, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 122 (SCC); Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.); Kamloops (City of) v. Nielsen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; Cooper v. Hobart, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537 (SCC); Foss v. Harbottle (1843), 67 E.R. 189 RULES CONSIDERED: Prince Edward Island Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 21.01(1)(b), 21.01(3)(d) Reasons for judgment: McQUAID J.A.: BACKGROUND AND FACTS [1] John McGowan and Carolyn McGowan, the appellants, were shareholders in McGowan Tractor & Equipment (1977) Ltd. ("McGowan Tractor"). The Bank of Nova Scotia, the respondent, is a chartered bank with a branch office in Montague, Prince Edward Island. At all material times McGowan Tractor and the appellants did their banking business with the respondent at this branch. [2] McGowan Tractor was in the business of selling farm equipment. To operate this business, the company arranged a $150,000. line of credit with the respondent in
3 Page: In 2001 the respondent requested the company to pay out the balance on the line of credit. After a period of discussion and negotiation between the company and the respondent, the line of credit was paid out in McGowan Tractor struggled financially and its assets were sold in [3] On December 11, 2007, the appellants commenced an action in the Supreme Court against the respondent by way of statement of claim. The appellants alleged that as a result of the sale, the value of the 250 shares they each held in McGowan Tractor was reduced to $1. each, and they lost all their personal equity in the company. They claimed general damages, special damages for loss of earnings, loss of benefits and other losses. They also claimed punitive or exemplary damages. [4] The statement of claim alleges that the appellant, John McGowan, had initially signed a personal guarantee of the company's line of credit up to $30,000. As part of the negotiations referred to above, Mr. McGowan, at the request of the respondent's branch manager, increased his personal guarantee to $60,000. [5] The appellants' allege that they had a long business relationship with the respondent, both personally and as shareholders of McGowan Tractor. The respondent's insistence that the company pay out the line of credit within the time periods requested by the respondent placed great stress on both appellants. The appellants also allege that the respondent's conduct consisted of the "erratic behavior" of the respondent's branch manager including his threats that he would return cheques written by the company if it did not accede to his requests to have the line of credit paid out. This conduct allegedly caused their health to deteriorate to the point where John McGowan was hospitalized. [6] The appellants take the position that the respondent dealt with them and McGowan Tractor as one and that the court should lift the corporate veil of the company and find that damages suffered by the company as the result of the respondent's actions were damages suffered by the appellants. The causes of action which the appellants assert are disclosed in the statement of claim are summarized in paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 thereof. They read as follows: 20. The Plaintiffs further state that the actions of the Bank and its employee Robert McNutt in making the demand for payment of the operating credit and their subsequent actions relating thereto, as herein set out, amounted to an abuse of the Bank s contractual rights and a breach of its contract with the business and the Plaintiffs, which resulted in their suffering the damages claimed by the Plaintiffs from the Defendants as set out in paragraph 1 hereof. (my emphasis)
4 Page: The Plaintiffs further state that the Defendant breached its contract with the business and the Plaintiffs, in failing to provide them with reasonable notice of its demand for payment of the operating credit and failing to provide a reasonable time period to the Plaintiffs and the business within which to pay it. The plaintiffs state that by reason of the Defendant s failures that they suffered the damages claimed by the Plaintiffs from the Defendant s as set out in paragraph 1 hereof. (my emphasis) 22. The Plaintiffs further state in the alternative that the Defendant owed a duty of care to the business and Plaintiffs, as a result of their banking relationship, and that by reason of the actions of the Defendant, as hereinbefore set out, that the Defendant was in breach of the appropriate standard of care. The Defendant was thereby negligent in doing what it did to the business and the Plaintiffs with the result being that the business and the Plaintiffs suffered the damages claimed by the Plaintiffs from the Defendant as set out in paragraph 1 hereof. (my emphasis) THE MOTION AND THE APPEAL [7] On June 5, 2009, the respondent, prior to filing a statement of defence, made a motion in the Supreme Court pursuant to Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 21.01(3)(d) of the Rules of Court. The respondent sought to have the statement of claim struck out on the ground that it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and on the further ground that it was frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. [8] Taylor J. heard the motion and while he dismissed the motion on the ground that the statement of claim was frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court, he allowed the motion and struck out the statement of claim on the ground that it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. See: McGowan v. Bank of Nova Scotia 2010 PESC 17; [2010] P.E.I.J. No. 13; (2010), 296 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 321; (2010), 96 C.P.C. (6th) 320. [9] The appellants appeal from the order of the motions judge. They ask this court to find that he erred and that his order striking the statement of claim be set aside. DISPOSITION [10] I would dismiss the appeal. THE REASONS OF THE MOTIONS JUDGE [11] The motions judge found that the statement of claim constituted a derivative
5 Page: 5 action by the plaintiffs as shareholders of McGowan Tractor. He also found that pursuant to the laws of Prince Edward Island derivative actions are not permitted. See: paragraphs 9 to 13 of the reasons of the motions judge. [12] With respect to the appellants' claim that they also had a reasonable cause of action against the respondent in contract or tort against the respondent, the motions judge found that the material facts pleaded in the statement of claim did not disclose such causes of action. See: the reasons of the motions judge at paragraph 14. THE ISSUE AND THE STANDARD OF REVIEW [13] The issues in this appeal are, whether the motions judge erred in law when he found that the appellants did not have a derivative action against the respondent and whether he erred when he found they did not have a cause of action in tort or breach of contract. As these issues raise questions of law alone, the order of the motions judge is reviewable by this court on a standard of correctness. Accordingly, this court is at liberty to substitute its assessment of the law on these issues for that of the motions judge. [14] In my opinion and for the reasons which follow, the motions judge was correct on both issues. ANALYSIS (i) Derivative Action - Rule in Foss v. Harbottle (1843), 67 E.R. 189 [15] The respondent takes the position that the statement of claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action because it attempts to establish what is known as a derivative action. The motions judge explained the nature of such an action at paragraph 9 of his reasons. In short, it is an action brought by shareholders of a corporation who derive their right to do so as a result of their connection to a separate legal entity, the corporation in which they hold shares. [16] Subject to laws of some jurisdictions within Canada, derivative actions are permitted on certain conditions. It is accepted that the laws of Prince Edward Island do not permit derivative actions by shareholders. Furthermore, even if the laws of the Province permitted such actions, the nature of a derivative action is that it must be for the benefit of the corporation and not the individual shareholders. [17] At paragraph 11 of his reasons, the motions judge quoted paragraph 59 of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Hercules Management Ltd. v. Ernst &
6 Page: 6 Young, [1997] 2 S.C.R Writing for the Court, La Forest J. states that an individual shareholder of a corporation does not have a cause of action for any wrongs done to the corporation. If there are wrongs done to the corporation, the action must be brought by the corporation or by the shareholder as a derivative action. The corporation alone and not the shareholders are liable for its actions and any contractual arrangements it makes. The shareholders have no liability. Similarly, the corporation has a cause of action to enforce its contractual arrangements and to recover damages for any wrongs it suffers as the result of a breach. An individual shareholder has no such cause of action unless the shareholder brings the action for the benefit of the company as a derivative action. [18] At paragraph 59 of his reasons in Hercules Management La Forest J. specifically stated as follows: [59 ] The rule in Foss v. Harbottle provides that individual shareholders have no cause of action in law for any wrongs done to the corporation and that if an action is to be brought in respect of such losses, it must be brought either by the corporation itself (through management) or by way of a derivative action. The legal rationale behind the rule was eloquently set out by the English Court of Appeal in Prudential Assurance Co. v. Newman Industries Ltd. (No. 2), [1982] 1 All E.R. 354, at p. 367, as follows: The rule [in Foss v. Harbottle] is the consequence of the fact that a corporation is a separate legal entity. Other consequences are limited liability and limited rights. The company is liable for its contracts and torts; the shareholder has no such liability. The company acquires causes of action for breaches of contract and for torts which damage the company. No cause of action vests in the shareholder. When the shareholder acquires a share he accepts the fact that the value of his investment follows the fortunes of the company and that he can only exercise his influence over the fortunes of the company by the exercise of his voting rights in general meeting. The law confers on him the right to ensure that the company observes the limitations of its memorandum of association and the right to ensure that other shareholders observe the rule, imposed on them by the articles of association. If it is right that the law has conferred or should in certain restricted circumstances confer further rights on a shareholder the scope and consequences of such further rights require careful consideration. [19] The appellants rely upon Houle v. Canadian National Bank, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 122 (SCC), in support of their position that the statement of claim discloses, alternatively, a cause of action against the respondent in the tort of negligence. I will
7 Page: 7 address this issue later in these reasons. However, it is of note this decision is instructive on whether it is possible to pierce the corporate veil of a corporation and provide shareholders with a remedy when a third party breaches a contractual obligation or in some other manner wrongs a corporation. [20] In Houle the bank took steps to realize upon its security which it held by way of a contractual relationship with the corporation. The Court found the bank acted impulsively when it realized upon the security. The shareholders commenced an action against the bank in the Province of Quebec on the basis that the bank had abused its contractual rights and on the basis that the action of the bank amounted to a delictual wrong under the provisions of the Quebec Civil Code. [21] The Court found that the shareholders did not have a cause of action. The shareholders were not parties to the contract between the bank and the corporation. Furthermore, the shareholders did not have any right of action based on contract between themselves and the bank. A personal guarantee had been provided by the shareholders to the bank; however, the shareholders were never called upon to pay under the provisions of the guarantee. Therefore, the Court found that the bank would have no liability to them as the result of action taken pursuant to the guarantee. [22] Notwithstanding the business relationship with the bank was a "family one" where it might be considered that the corporation and the shareholders were "one," the Court was not prepared to lift the corporate veil. The Court noted that the shareholders chose certain benefits of incorporation, and they must live with the consequence. [23] Similarly, in the case at bar the appellants chose to incorporate McGowan Tractor and thereby create a separate legal entity. They had no liability to the respondent for the indebtedness owed by the company to the respondent, except to the extent that Mr. McGowan contractually assumed personal responsibility by way of his personal guarantee to pay $60,000. of the company's indebtedness. The statement of claim does not disclose that Mr. McGowan was ever called upon to pay under the provisions of the personal guarantee. Therefore, it is not possible at law for the appellants to pierce the corporate veil and maintain causes of action against the respondent for wrongs alleged to have been inflicted on the corporation, McGowan Tractor. [24] In their statement of claim, the appellants framed their primary cause of action as if it were a derivative action. In the alternative, they also attempted to frame personal causes of action against the respondent in tort and breach of contract. [25] With respect to the derivative actions, the motions judge was correct when he
8 Page: 8 concluded such actions are not permitted under the laws of Prince Edward Island. Therefore, the statement of claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action. [26] The motions judge was also correct when he concluded that even if a derivative action was permitted in this province, the facts set forth in the statement of claim do not disclose an action in the nature of a derivative action. The motions judge correctly determined that, in the context of the facts set forth in the statement of claim, the action of the appellants was for their personal benefit as shareholders and not for the benefit of the corporation, McGowan Tractor. (ii) Actions in negligence and breach of contract [27] Because the appellants assert the statement of claim discloses facts which are capable of establishing alternative causes of action, it is necessary to consider whether the statement of claim discloses a personal cause of action against the respondent in tort or contract. At paragraph 14 of his reasons the motions judge found it did not. Again, I conclude he was correct. [28] Where a shareholder has been harmed, he or she may have a personal cause of action if the requisite elements of the cause of action are established by the pleadings. In Hercules Management La Forest J. stated at paragraph 62: [62 ] One final point should be made here. Referring to the case of Goldex Mines Ltd. v. Revill (1974), 7 O.R. (2d) 216 (C.A.), the appellants submit that where a shareholder has been directly and individually harmed, that shareholder may have a personal cause of action even though the corporation may also have a separate and distinct cause of action. Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs should be understood to detract from this principle. In finding that claims in respect of losses stemming from an alleged inability to oversee or supervise management are really derivative and not personal in nature, I have found only that shareholders cannot raise individual claims in respect of a wrong done to the corporation. Indeed, this is the limit of the rule in Foss v. Harbottle. Where, however, a separate and distinct claim (say, in tort) can be raised with respect to a wrong done to a shareholder qua individual, a personal action may well lie, assuming that all the requisite elements of a cause of action can be made out. (my emphasis). [29] As I stated, the appellants assert that their statement of claim discloses a personal cause of action in negligence and breach of contract or breach of a duty of good faith. The respondent, on the other hand, takes the position that the appellants' statement of claim does not disclose the "requisite elements" of a personal cause of action in any of these.
9 Page: 9 [30] The appellants rely on the decision in Houle to support their position that as shareholders they have a cause of action in negligence against the respondent. In Houle the court found that, although there was a contractual obligation on the bank solely to the corporation, the bank did, nevertheless, have a duty to the shareholders to act in a prudent and diligent manner with respect to the disposition of the company's assets. The shareholders had established that as a result of the manner in which the bank dealt with the assets of the company, the value of the company's shares had been reduced. The obligation on the bank arose, according to the court, from Article 1053 of the Quebec Civil Code which reads as follows: Every person capable of discerning right from wrong is responsible for the damage caused by his fault to another, whether by positive act, imprudence, neglect or want of skill. [31] The court found the bank liable for the decrease in the value of the shareholder's shares because pursuant to Article 1053, the bank had a delictual liability to the shareholders. [32] With respect, the decision in Houle does not assist the appellants because it is based on the provisions of Article 1053 of the Quebec Civil Code. Prince Edward Island is a common law jurisdiction and the Civil Code is not applicable. The test for establishing negligence at common law is to make a determination whether the wrongdoer owed the injured party a duty of care. This is much different than imposing liability of the basis that one has the duty to distinguish " right from wrong" as provided for in Article [33] At paragraph 21 of the statement of claim, the appellants allege that the respondent owed a duty of care to them and McGowan Tractor " as a result of their banking relationship ". They also allege in the same paragraph that the respondent was " negligent in doing what it did to the business and the Plaintiffs with the result being that the business and the Plaintiffs suffered damages claimed by the Plaintiffs ". [34] To maintain a cause of action in negligence, the appellants would have to establish that the respondent owed them a duty of care. Therefore, to avoid being struck as failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, the appellants' statement of claim must plead sufficient facts which, if proven at trial, would establish that the respondent owed the appellants a duty of care. [35] It is well established that the test for determining if a duty of care is owed by one party to another is that set forth in Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.). This was subsequently endorsed and adopted in Canada by
10 Page: 10 the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Kamloops (City of) v. Nielsen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2. This test is commonly referred to as the Anns/Kamloops test. [36] Subsequently in Cooper v. Hobart, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537 (SCC) at paragraph 30, McLachlin C.J.C. and Major J. explained the Anns/Kamloops test by pointing out that at the first stage of the test there are two questions to be addressed. Was the relationship between the plaintiff (the appellants) and the defendant (the respondent) sufficiently proximate such that harm was reasonably foreseeable as the result of the defendant's actions, and secondly, are there reasons, despite the fact there was proximity of relationship between the parties, that liability in negligence should not be found? If foreseeability and proximity are established at the first stage of the test, the issue at the second stage of the test is whether there are any residual policy considerations, beyond the relationship of the parties, why a duty of care should not be imposed. [37] At paragraph 30 of Cooper v. Hobart, McLachlin C.J.C. and Major J. stated as follows: [30] In brief compass, we suggest that at this stage in the evolution of the law, both in Canada and abroad, the Anns analysis is best understood as follows. At the first stage of the Anns test, two questions arise: (1) was the harm that occurred the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's act? and (2) are there reasons, notwithstanding the proximity between the parties established in the first part of this test, that tort liability should not be recognized here? The proximity analysis involved at the first stage of the Anns test focuses on factors arising from the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. These factors include questions of policy, in the broad sense of that word. If foreseeability and proximity are established at the first stage, a prima facie duty of care arises. At the second stage of the Anns test, the question still remains whether there are residual policy considerations outside the relationship of the parties that may negative the imposition of a duty of care. It may be, as the Privy Council suggests in Yuen Kun Yeu, that such considerations will not often prevail. However, we think it useful expressly to ask, before imposing a new duty of care, whether despite foreseeability and proximity of relationship, there are other policy reasons why the duty should not be imposed. [38] At paragraph 31, the court went on to explain that proximity at the first stage of the test characterizes the type of relationship in which a duty of care could arise. Also, sufficiently proximate relationships are identified by the use of categories which are not closed because new categories of negligence may be introduced. McLachlin C.J.C. and Major J. stated:
11 Page: 11 [31] On the first branch of the Anns test, reasonable foreseeability of the harm must be supplemented by proximity. The question is what is meant by proximity. Two things may be said. The first is that proximity is generally used in the authorities to characterize the type of relationship in which a duty of care may arise. The second is that sufficiently proximate relationships are identified through the use of categories. The categories are not closed and new categories of negligence may be introduced. But generally, proximity is established by reference to these categories. This provides certainty to the law of negligence, while still permitting it to evolve to meet the needs of new circumstances. [39] The ultimate purpose of the proximity analysis is to determine if the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is sufficiently close or proximate to make it just and fair that a duty of care should be imposed upon a defendant. The factors to be considered in conducting the proximity analysis are not restricted; however, it usually will involve a consideration of the expectations, representations, reliance and property or other interests of the parties involved in the proceeding. See: Cooper v. Hobart at paras. 33 & 34. [40] The relationship brought to issue in the appellants' statement of claim is between the respondent and the shareholders of a corporation which had a contractual arrangement with the respondent to repay money it had borrowed. As the parties have not identified this as a category of relationship where a duty of care has been recognized in the past, this court must consider if it is the type of relationship in which a prima facie duty of care does arise. [41] The relationship disclosed by the facts in the statement of claim was the relationship which existed between the respondent and McGowan Tractor. There was a contractual relationship between the appellant, John McGowan, and the respondent because of the latter's personal guarantee of the indebtedness. However, the statement of claim does not disclose any facts which, if proven at trial would establish that Mr. McGowan suffered any harm as the result of action of the respondent in relation to the personal guarantee. All the facts in the statement of claim relate to action which the respondent took against McGowan Tractor and not the appellants collectively, or any one of them individually. [42] The respondent dealt with the assets of the company and the indebtedness of McGowan Tractor which was a legal entity separate from the appellants as shareholders. There was no proximity of relationship between the appellants and the respondent such that it should have been foreseeable on the part of the respondent that actions which it took against McGowan Tractor would cause harm to the appellants as shareholders. This is particularly so in light of the fact that the appellants
12 Page: 12 incorporated McGowan Tractor as a means of limiting liability to that of the company and as a means of protecting themselves, personally, against liability. There was no proximity of relationship between the respondent and the appellants which would give rise to a prima facie duty of care on the part of the respondent. It would be unjust and unfair to impose upon the respondent a duty of care to the shareholders of the company with respect to actions which the respondent took against the company and not the appellants personally. [43] Finally and furthermore, even if there was proximity of relationship such as to make it foreseeable on the part of the respondent that if it caused harm to McGowan Tractor it would be foreseeable that harm would result to the appellants as shareholders, policy reasons would dictate that a prima facie duty of care should be negated. The policy reason being that to do so would necessarily pierce the corporate veil. To do so in the circumstances of the facts as pleaded in the appellants statement of claim would violate this long standing rule at common law. [44] Therefore, at common law, in the absence of facts in the statement of claim which disclose a duty of care is owed to the appellants by the respondent, the statement of claim does not disclose a reasonable personal cause of action in negligence against the respondent. The order of the motions judge striking the statement of claim should be confirmed. [45] With respect to whether the statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action for breach of contract or breach of good faith, I agree with the motions judge that the statement of claim does not disclose facts which would sustain an action for either. The contractual arrangements placed in issue by the facts in the statement of claim are between the respondent and McGowan Tractor, not between the respondent and the appellants as shareholders of that corporation. [46] The appeal is dismissed. The respondent shall have its costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity basis. I would fix those costs at $3,000., inclusive of all applicable taxes and disbursements. I AGREE: Justice Gordon L. Campbell Justice John A. McQuaid I AGREE:
13 Justice Wayne D. Cheverie Page: 13
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Hubley v. Hubley Estate 2011 PECA 19 Date: 20111124 Docket: S1-CA-1211 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: DENISE
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION PAUL J. D. MULLIN. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS and COOPERS & LYBRAND
Citation: Mullin v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers Date: 20031022 2003 PESCTD 82 Docket: S1-GS-19307 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: PAUL
More informationRULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL WHERE AVAILABLE To any Party on a Question of Law (1) A party may move before a judge, (a) for
RULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL WHERE AVAILABLE To any Party on a Question of Law 21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge, (a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law
More informationCitation: Gallant v. Piccott Date: PESCAD 17 Docket: AD-0859 Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Gallant v. Piccott Date: 20000518 2000 PESCAD 17 Docket: AD-0859 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: STEPHEN ARTHUR PICCOTT,
More informationCitation: Polar Foods v. Jensen Date: PESCTD 63 Docket: S-1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Polar Foods v. Jensen Date: 20020924 2002 PESCTD 63 Docket: S-1-GS-18910 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: POLAR FOODS INTERNATIONAL
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: MacDonald v. Deutsche Bank AG, 2016 NSSC 284
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: MacDonald v. Deutsche Bank AG, 2016 NSSC 284 Date: 2016-10-26 Docket: HFX442818 Registry: Halifax Between: Richard Hugh MacDonald Plaintiff v. Deutsche Bank AG, Canada
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: E.R.I. Engine v. MacEachern 2011 PECA 2 Date: 20110107 Docket: S1-CA-1195 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: STEVEN
More informationCHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX, DECEASED, JOHN GRAHAM TERRANCE FOX, ESTATE TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Fox v. Narine, 2016 ONSC 6499 COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-526934 DATE: 20161020 RE: CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX, DECEASED, JOHN GRAHAM TERRANCE FOX, ESTATE TRUSTEE
More informationDeloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc. (Receiver of) : a Reformulation of the Test for a Duty of Care in Hercules Managements Ltd. v.
Deloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc. (Receiver of) : a Reformulation of the Test for a Duty of Care in Hercules Managements Ltd. v. Ernst & Young Matthew Karabus and Tali Green (Student-at-Law), Gowling WLG
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Public Trustee as Litigation Administrator of the Estate of Philip Douglas Hubley
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Hubley v. Est. Hubley 2010 PESC 38 Date: 20100907 Docket: S1-GS-21678 Registry: Charlottetown Between: And: Denise Hubley Public Trustee as Litigation Administrator
More informationIngles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000
Ingles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000 (City Council at its regular meeting held on October 3, 4 and 5, 2000, and its Special Meetings
More informationCitation: Trans Canada Credit v. Judson Date: PESCTD 57 Docket: SCC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Trans Canada Credit v. Judson Date: 20020906 2002 PESCTD 57 Docket: SCC-22372 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: TRANS CANADA
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Knight v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, 2009 BCCA 541 Kenneth Knight Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited Date: 20091208 Docket: CA035214 Respondent
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Patrick Jay
Citation: Jay v. DHL Express Date: 20060103 2006 PESCTD 01 Docket: S1 GS-18505 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Between: And: Patrick Jay DHL
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Citation: Lank v. Government of PEI 2010 PESC 09 Date: Docket: S1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Lank v. Government of PEI 2010 PESC 09 Date: 20100218 Docket: S1-GS-16828 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Stephen Lank and Stephen Lank Enterprises Inc.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: PEI Protestant Children s Trust and Province of PEI and S. Marshall 2014 PESC 6 Date:20140225 Docket: S1-GS-20889 Registry: Charlottetown Between: And: And:
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Date of Release: May 1, 1992 No. 17176 Kamloops Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: ) ) JACQUELYN BARBARA DAVIDSON ) ) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF ) ) OF THE HONOURABLE AND: )
More informationINDEX. . accountants and actuaries, negligence, . but-for test, factual causation.. but for test, material contribution test, 22-23
INDEX accountants and actuaries. contract, breach of, 157. damages, assessment, 159. duties owed to third parties, 67-68. fiduciary duty, breach of, 157-159. liability, generally, 149. negligence.. duty
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Gosselin v. Shepherd, 2010 BCSC 755 April Gosselin Date: 20100527 Docket: S104306 Registry: New Westminster Plaintiff Mark Shepherd and Dr.
More informationCase Name: W.W. v. Canada (Attorney General) Between W.W., plaintiff, and Attorney General of Canada, defendant. [2002] B.C.J. No BCSC 1164
Page 1 Case Name: W.W. v. Canada (Attorney General) Between W.W., plaintiff, and Attorney General of Canada, defendant [2002] B.C.J. No. 1821 2002 BCSC 1164 Vancouver Registry No. S005157 British Columbia
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Citation: Cairns v Bd. of School Trustees & Ors 2009 PESC 03 GORDON CAIRNS
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Cairns v Bd. of School Trustees & Ors 2009 PESC 03 Court File No. S2-GS-5182 Date: 20090128 Registry: Summerside BETWEEN: GORDON CAIRNS PLAINTIFF (RESPONDENT)
More informationCROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT
c t CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 20, 2017. It is intended for information and
More information2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Br...
Page 1 of 7 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Brokers), 2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation and Keith
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Between: Gabriel Elbaz, Sogelco International Inc. and Summerside Seafood Supreme Inc.
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Summerside Seafood v. Gov PEI 2012 PESC 4 Date: January 30, 2012 Docket: S1-GS-20942 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Gabriel Elbaz, Sogelco International
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN. PRIME EQUIPMENT RENTALS LIMITED Claimant AND AND THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD & TOBAGO) LIMITED
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV 2014-00133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN PRIME EQUIPMENT RENTALS LIMITED Claimant AND ANAND SINGH Defendant AND THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180914 Docket: CI 13-01-85087 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Paterson et al. v. Walker et al. Cited as: 2018 MBQB 150 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: SHARRON PATERSON AND ) RUSSELL
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Baypoint Holdings Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2018 NSCA 17. v. Royal Bank of Canada
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Baypoint Holdings Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2018 NSCA 17 Date: 20180221 Docket: CA 460374/464441 Registry: Halifax Between: Baypoint Holdings Limited, and John
More informationPLEADINGS RULE 25 PLEADINGS IN AN ACTION
PLEADINGS RULE 25 PLEADINGS IN AN ACTION PLEADINGS REQUIRED OR PERMITTED Action Commenced by Statement of Claim or Notice of Action 25.01 (1) In an action commenced by statement of claim or notice of action,
More informationSmt. Yallwwa & Ors vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 16 May, 2007
Supreme Court of India Smt. Yallwwa & Ors vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 16 May, 2007 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2674 of 2007 PETITIONER: Smt.
More informationLord Cranworth delivered an ardent dissent in the following terms:
310 ALBERTA LAW REVIEW PRIORITIES OF MORTGAGES-MORTGAGE FOR PRESENT AND FUTURE ADVANCES-WHETHER FIRST MORTGAGEE MAY TACK FUTURE ADVANCES WHERE THERE HAS BEEN AN IN TERVENING ENCUMBRANCE Under the land
More informationTORTS SPECIFIC TORTS NEGLIGENCE
TORTS A tort is a private civil wrong. It is prosecuted by the individual or entity that was wronged against the wrongdoer. One aim of tort law is to provide compensation for injuries. The goal of the
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN STACEY REID BLACKMORE
Date: 19991207 Docket: AD-0832 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN STACEY REID BLACKMORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND RAMDATH DAVE RAMPERSAD, LIQUIDATOR OF HINDU CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No: CV 2012-04837 BETWEEN R. A. HOLDINGS LIMITED Claimant AND RAMDATH DAVE RAMPERSAD, LIQUIDATOR OF HINDU CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Senechal v MacPhee 2010 PESC 11 Date: 20100224 Docket: S1 GS- 22179 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Frank and Caron Senechal of the Cambridge Road Kings County, Province
More informationContract and Tort Law for Engineers
Contract and Tort Law for Engineers Christian S. Tacit Tel: 613-599-5345 Email: ctacit@tacitlaw.com Canadian Systems of Law There are two systems of law that operate in Canada Common Law and Civil Law
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RECOVERY OF DAMAGES. C.R.P. No.365/2006 RESERVED ON : DATE OF DECISION:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RECOVERY OF DAMAGES C.R.P. No.365/2006 RESERVED ON : 27-02-2007 DATE OF DECISION: 05-03-2007 TRISTAR CONSULTANTS... Petitioner through: Mr.M.S.Ganesh,
More informationFEDERAL COURT PRACTICE AND ARREST OF SHIPS
Nova Scotia Barristers Society Continuing Professional Development July 12, 2006 FEDERAL COURT PRACTICE AND ARREST OF SHIPS Richard F. Southcott Admiralty Jurisdiction Federal Court and Provincial Superior
More informationJan J Roestorf NO First Plaintiff David G Walshe NO Second Plaintiff. Katherine Natalie Johns Defendant. Judgment
In the KwaZulu-Natal High Court, Durban Republic of South Africa Case No : 12036/07 In the matter between : Jan J Roestorf NO First Plaintiff David G Walshe NO Second Plaintiff and Katherine Natalie Johns
More informationWIFRED PAUL HUSTON, aka WILFRED PAUL HUSTON, Defendant. COUNSEL: Carlin McGoogan and Christopher Du Vernet, for the Plaintiff ENDORSEMENT
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Barbulov v. Huston, 2010 ONSC 3088 COURT FILE NO.: CV-09-378669 DATE: 20100528 RE: DRAGO BARBULOV, Plaintiff AND: WIFRED PAUL HUSTON, aka WILFRED PAUL HUSTON,
More informationRULE 60 ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS
RULE 60 ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS DEFINITIONS 60.01 In Rules 60.02 to 60.19, (a) "creditor" means a person who is entitled to enforce an order for the payment or recovery of money; (b) "debtor" means a person
More informationCitation: Duffy Const. v. Dennis Const Date: PESCTD 95 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Duffy Const. v. Dennis Const Date: 20001205 2000 PESCTD 95 Docket: GSC-17689 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: DUFFY
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: 1688782 Ontario Inc. v. Maple Leaf Foods Inc., 2018 ONCA 407 Date: 20180430 DOCKET: C63107 BETWEEN Sharpe, Rouleau and Fairburn JJ.A. 1688782 Ontario Inc. and Plaintiff
More informationCED: An Overview of the Law
Torts BY: Edwin Durbin, B.Comm., LL.B., LL.M. of the Ontario Bar Part II Principles of Liability Click HERE to access the CED and the Canadian Abridgment titles for this excerpt on Westlaw Canada II.1.(a):
More informationCanadian Systems of Law Contract and Tort Law for Professionals There are two systems of law that operate in Canada: Common Law and Civil Law.
Canadian Systems of Law Contract and Tort Law for Professionals There are two systems of law that operate in Canada: Common Law and Civil Law. Common Law operates in all Canadian Provinces and territories
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC 520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY CIV-2013-419-000929 [2014] NZHC 520 BETWEEN AND JONATHAN DOUGLAS SEALEY and DIANE MICHELLE SEALEY Appellants GARY ALLAN CRAIG, JOHN LEONARD SIEPRATH,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288 Date: 20171107 Docket: Bwt No. 459126 Registry: Bridgewater Between: Michael Dockrill, in his capacity as the executor
More informationBY-LAW NO. 1. A by-law relating generally to the transaction of the business and affairs of. Kinder Morgan Canada Limited.
BY-LAW NO. 1 A by-law relating generally to the transaction of the business and affairs of Kinder Morgan Canada Limited Contents One - Interpretation Two - Business of the Corporation Three - Borrowing
More informationCitation: Action Press v. PEITF Date: PESCTD 02 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Action Press v. PEITF Date: 20020114 2002 PESCTD 02 Docket: GSC-18145 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: CARRUTHERS ENTERPRISES
More informationMEC: EDUCATION - WESTERN CAPE v STRAUSS JUDGMENT
MEC: EDUCATION - WESTERN CAPE v STRAUSS FORUM : SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE : MALAN AJA CASE NO : 640/06 DATE : 28 NOVEMBER 2007 JUDGMENT Judgement: Malan AJA: [1] This is an appeal with leave of the
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Downer v. The Personal Insurance Company, 2012 ONCA 302 Ryan M. Naimark, for the appellant Lang, LaForme JJ.A. and Pattillo J. (ad hoc) John W. Bruggeman,
More informationREPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF SELLER.
All Accounts sold to Purchaser under this Agreement are sold and transferred without recourse as to their enforceability, collectability or documentation except as stated above. 2. PURCHASE PRICE. Subject
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Court File No. CV-12-444388 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: EPOCH S GARAGE LIMITED, COOK SCHOOL BUS LINES LIMITED, 678928 ONTARIO INC. and ROBERT DOUGLAS AKITT O/A DOUG AKITT BUS LINES - and
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Walter Energy Canada Holdings, Inc. (Re), 2018 BCSC 1135 Date: 20180709 Docket: S1510120 Registry: Vancouver In the Matter of the Companies Creditors
More informationNOTICE OF APPLICATION
Vancouver 25-Jan-19 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA No. S1710393 Vancouver Registry IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER
More informationCase Name: Beiko v. Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines
Page 1 Case Name: Beiko v. Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines Between Dr. George Beiko, Dr. Lawrence Aedy, Dr. Bruce Lennox and Dr. Gerald Scaife, Plaintiffs/Respondents, and Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines,
More information(2017) 3 Journal of the Mooting Society University of Lagos AGIP (NIG.) LTD V. AGIP PETROLI INT L (2010) 5NWLR PT. 1187
AGIP (NIG.) LTD V. AGIP PETROLI INT L (2010) 5NWLR PT. 1187 MISTHURA OTUBU * 1.0 INTRODUCTION There are three categories of proceedings that may be brought by minority shareholders for the purpose of prosecuting,
More informationINVESTOR PRESENTATION JUNE 5TH, 2017 UPDATED JUNE 22 TH, 2017
INVESTOR PRESENTATION JUNE 5TH, 2017 UPDATED JUNE 22 TH, 2017 1 FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION AND STATEMENTS This Presentation contains certain statements that may be forward-looking statements or forward-looking
More informationJ:\lmc\corporateinformation\by-laws\by-lawsfebruary doc BY-LAWS OF LUNDIN MINING CORP.
BY-LAWS OF LUNDIN MINING CORP. LUNDIN MINING CORPORATION BY-LAW No. 1 Table of Contents Page SECTION ONE INTERPRETATION... 1 1.01 Definitions.... 1 1.02 Construction.... 1 SECTION TWO BUSINESS OF THE CORPORATION...
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Abbott and Haliburton Co. Ltd. v. White Burgess Langille Inman, 2018 NSSC 47
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Abbott and Haliburton Co. Ltd. v. White Burgess Langille Inman, 2018 NSSC 47 Date: 20180711 Docket: Hfx No. 270401 Registry: Halifax Between: Abbott and Haliburton
More informationPRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW SUMMARY 2011
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW SUMMARY 2011 LAWSKOOL CANADA CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION TO PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW... 5 1.1 WHAT IS PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW?... 5 1.2 TERRITORIAL DIMENSIONS OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Citation: Widelitz v. Cox & Palmer 2010 PESC 43 Date: Docket: S1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Widelitz v. Cox & Palmer 2010 PESC 43 Date: 20101022 Docket: S1-GS-23705 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Kenneth Widelitz Plaintiff And: Cox & Palmer Defendant
More informationCASH MANAGEMENT SERVICES MASTER AGREEMENT
This Cash Management Services Master Agreement (the Master Agreement ) and any applicable Schedules (the Master Agreement and any applicable Schedules are together referred to as the Agreement ) sets out
More informationGUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LIMITED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 4490/2015 DATE HEARD: 02/03/2017 DATE DELIVERED: 30/03/2017 In the matter between GUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY)
More informationIntroductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario
Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario Table of Contents INTRODUCTION This guide contains an overview of the Canadian legal system and court structure as well as key procedural and substantive
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And B & L Holdings Inc. v. SNFW Fitness BC Ltd., 2018 BCCA 221 B & L Holdings Inc. SNFW Fitness BC Ltd., Mark Mastrov and Leonard Schlemm Date: 20180606
More informationSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND
LC0 00 -- S STATE OF RHODE ISLAND IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY JANUARY SESSION, A.D. 00 A N A C T RELATING TO COURTS AND CIVIL PROCEDURE - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE Introduced By: Senators Polisena, Roberts, Sosnowski,
More informationSECURITY AGREEMENT. SCOTIABANK COVERED BOND GUARANTOR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, as Guarantor. - and -
Execution Version SECURITY AGREEMENT SCOTIABANK COVERED BOND GUARANTOR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, as Guarantor - and - COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY OF CANADA, as Bond Trustee - and - THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA,
More information2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Cruz v. McPherson CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720
2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Cruz v. McPherson 2014 CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720 Terra Cruz and Carmen Cruz, Plaintiffs and Jason Mcpherson, 546291 Ontario
More informationTHOMAS W. DANA, ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. October 31, FREEMASON, A CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
Present: All the Justices THOMAS W. DANA, ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No. 030450 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. October 31, 2003 313 FREEMASON, A CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
More informationState of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: December 20, 2018 526578 CHARLES W. DOLLER, v Appellant, DAVID J. PRESCOTT et al., Respondents. MEMORANDUM
More informationCLASS ACTIONS: HOW TO OPPOSE CERTIFICATION
CLASS ACTIONS: HOW TO OPPOSE CERTIFICATION Roderick S.W. Winsor Blaney McMurtry LLP 416.593.3971 rwinsor@blaney.com 2 CLASS ACTIONS AGAINST GOVERNMENT 1. INTRODUCTION Class actions have rapidly become
More informationWellington et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario et al. [Indexed as: Wellington v. Ontario] 105 O.R. (3d) ONCA 274
Wellington et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario et al. [Indexed as: Wellington v. Ontario] 105 O.R. (3d) 81 2011 ONCA 274 Court of Appeal for Ontario, Moldaver, Sharpe and R.P. Armstrong
More informationIN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and LAMBERT JAMES-SOOMER. and LAMBERT JAMES-SOOMER
SAINT LUCIA IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO.: SLUHCV 2003/0138 BETWEEN (1) MICHELE STEPHENSON (2) MAHALIA MARS (Qua Administratrices of the Estate of ANTHONY
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION LOUISE PARKER
Date: 19971222 Docket: GSC-15236 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: LOUISE PARKER PLAINTIFF AND: LEDWELL, LARTER and DRISCOLL and DAVID
More informationIN THE QUEEN'S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF REGINA. -and-
..,. ~ I CANADA ) PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN ) } ()7 Q.B.G. No. ------'-'------- IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF REGINA Between: NICOLE BRITTIN -and- PLAINTIFF THE MINSTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN DOC S ENGINEERING WORKS (1992) LTD DOCS ENGINEERING WORKS LTD RAJ GOSINE SHAMDEO GOSINE AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CA No. 34 of 2013 CV No. 03690 of 2011 PANEL: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN DOC S ENGINEERING WORKS (1992) LTD DOCS ENGINEERING WORKS LTD RAJ GOSINE SHAMDEO GOSINE AND
More informationc t DAIRY PRODUCERS ACT
c t DAIRY PRODUCERS ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for information and reference
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520 DATE: 20150709 DOCKET: C59661 BETWEEN Laskin, Lauwers and Hourigan JJ.A.
More informationOCTOBER 2012 LAW REVIEW OBVIOUS TREE HAZARD ON PARK SLEDDING HILL
OBVIOUS TREE HAZARD ON PARK SLEDDING HILL James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2012 James C. Kozlowski Under traditional principles of landowner liability for negligence, the landowner generally owes a legal
More informationTHE BUILDING CONTROL AMENDMENT REGULATIONS. Martin Waldron BL
MARTIN WALDRON BL FCIArb MSCSI MRICS Accredited Adjudicator & Mediator Law Library The Four Courts Dublin 7 +353(1)8177865 +353(86)2395167 www.waldron.ie martin@waldron.ie THE BUILDING CONTROL AMENDMENT
More informationPLEASE NOTE. For more information concerning the history of this Act, please see the Table of Public Acts.
PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for information and reference purposes only. This
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And: Varner v. Vancouver (City), 2009 BCSC 333 Gary Varner Date: 20090226 Docket: S032834 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiff John Doe and Richard
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Against. Gerard Joseph MacDonald
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: R v. MacDonald 2007 PESCTD 29 Date: 20070820 Docket: S1 GC-556 Registry: Charlottetown Between Her Majesty the Queen Against
More informationDRUNKENNESS AS A DEFENCE TO MURDER
Page 1 DRUNKENNESS AS A DEFENCE TO MURDER Criminal Law Conference 2005 Halifax, Nova Scotia Prepared by: Joel E. Pink, Q.C. Joel E. Pink, Q.C. & Associates 1583 Hollis Street, Ste 300 Halifax, NS B3J 2P8
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Weir s Construction Limited v. Warford (Estate), 2018 NLCA 5 Date: January 22, 2018 Docket: 201601H0092 BETWEEN: WEIR S CONSTRUCTION
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Noël Ayangma. Canada Health Infoway Inc. PEI Human Rights Commission
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Ayangma v Infoway 2009 PESC 24 Date: 20090814 Docket: S1-GS-22233 Registry: Charlottetown Between: And: And: Noël Ayangma Canada Health Infoway Inc. PEI
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
Citation: Society of Lloyd s v. McNeill Date: 20031107 2003 PESCTD 88 Docket: S-1-GS-19948 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION In the Matter of
More informationCourt Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division (G) G1143 (2014 NLTD(G) 131)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40 Date: August 4, 2016 Docket: 14/96 BETWEEN: TANYA TUCK APPELLANT AND: SUPREME HOLDINGS
More informationCANADIAN COAST GUARD AUXILIARY (MARITIMES) INC. BY- LAWS
CANADIAN COAST GUARD AUXILIARY (MARITIMES) INC. BY- LAWS REVISED 1990 APPROVED: ANNUAL MEETING CAP-AUX-MEULES, QUE. - 28 th APRIL 1990 AMENDED, SEMI-ANNUAL MEETING SUMMERSIDE, P.E.I. - 30 th SEPTEMBER
More informationHALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON
CITATION: Whitters v. Furtive Networks Inc., 2012 ONSC 2159 COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-420068 DATE: 20120405 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON - and - FURTIVE NETWORKS
More informationCORPORATE SERVICES AGREEMENT. by and among THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA. as Client. and SCOTIABANK COVERED BOND GUARANTOR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.
Execution Version CORPORATE SERVICES AGREEMENT by and among THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA as Client and SCOTIABANK COVERED BOND GUARANTOR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP as Guarantor and COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY OF CANADA
More informationBANK ACCOUNT AGREEMENT. by and among. NBC COVERED BOND (LEGISLATIVE) GUARANTOR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP as Guarantor. and
Execution Copy BANK ACCOUNT AGREEMENT by and among NBC COVERED BOND (LEGISLATIVE) GUARANTOR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP as Guarantor and NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA as Cash Manager, Account Bank and GIC Provider and
More informationThomas Gorsky and C. Chan, for the Defendant ENDORSEMENT
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: CHRISTMAS v. FORT McKAY, 2014 ONSC #373 COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-461796 DATE: 20140128 RE: BERND CHRISTMAS, Plaintiff AND FORT McKAY FIRST NATION, Defendant BEFORE:
More informationThe Sales on Consignment Act
The Sales on Consignment Act being Chapter 286 of The Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1940 (effective February 1, 1941). NOTE: This consolidation is not official. Amendments have been incorporated for
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL LIANNU LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY ITS GENERAL PARTNER M&M ENGINEERING LIMITED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Liannu Limited Partnership v. Modspace Financial Services Canada Ltd., 2016 NLCA 15 Date: April 8, 2016 Docket: 201501H0030 BETWEEN:
More informationA by-law relating generally to the transaction of the business and affairs of. Contents. Protection of Directors, Officers and Others
BY-LAW NO. 1 A by-law relating generally to the transaction of the business and affairs of PAN AMERICAN CANNABIS INC. Contents One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten Eleven Interpretation Business
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION LAW SOCIETY OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Date: 19980514 Docket: GSC-16464 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: LAW SOCIETY OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND APPLICANT AND: PAULA M. MacKINNON
More informationShareholder Class Actions: A New Statutory Regime in Ontario
Shareholder Class Actions: A New Statutory Regime in Ontario Douglas M. Worndl 1 February 2003 Unlike the United States, where the statutorily based fraud on the market doctrine has enabled widespread
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Her Majesty the Queen. against. Corey Blair Clarke
Citation: R v Clarke Date:20050216 2005 PCSCTD 10 Docket:S 1 GC 384 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Her Majesty the Queen against Corey Blair
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ALBERTA THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE CONRAD THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE RUSSELL THE HONOURABLE MR.
Tottrup v. Lund, 2000 ABCA 121 Date:20000425 Docket: #9603-0180-AC THE COURT: BETWEEN: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ALBERTA THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE CONRAD THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE RUSSELL THE HONOURABLE
More information