Category: Corporate / Commercial Page 2 of 5

Case Commented On: Asher Place Senior Residency Limited Partnership v Balcom, 2021 BCCA 162 (CanLII)

In Asher Place Senior Residency Limited Partnership v Balcom, 2021 BCCA 162 (CanLII), the issue was whether a common law derivative action may be brought on behalf and in the name of a limited partnership against the partnership’s general partner based on alleged wrongs committed by the general partner in its conduct of the business of the limited partnership (at para 1). The Court of Appeal found that procedurally and substantively, it is possible.

Bidders Do Not Owe Duties of Fairness and Honesty to Other Bidders in Tendering Competitions

By Jassmine Girgis

On November 27, 2019

In Corporate / Commercial

By: Jassmine Girgis

PDF Version: Bidders Do Not Owe Duties of Fairness and Honesty to Other Bidders in Tendering Competitions

Case Commented On: LaPrairie Works Inc v Ledcor Alberta Limited, 2019 ABQB 701(CanLII)

This case raises the interesting question of whether bidders in a tendering competition owe duties of fair play to other bidders. The plaintiffs asserted that a contract had been formed among the bidders, requiring the bidders to treat each other fairly in the bid preparation stage, and that this contract had been breached at their expense. In a judgment summarily dismissing this claim, Justice Michael Lema found that the plaintiffs had not discharged the onus of proving a contract existed (at para 57).

Director Liability and the Workers’ Compensation Scheme: The Divergence Between Policy Goals and Outcomes

By Jassmine Girgis

On May 14, 2019

In Corporate / Commercial, Torts

By: Jassmine Girgis

PDF Version: Director Liability and the Workers’ Compensation Scheme: The Divergence Between Policy Goals and Outcomes

Case Commented On: Hall v Stewart, 2019 ABCA 98

The workers’ compensation scheme and its effect on directors’ personal liability for corporate torts is an area of law that pursues the right policy goals but fails to achieve those goals in its implementation.

This post is about directors’ personal liability, the interplay between the Workers’ Compensation Act, RSA 2000, c W-15 (Act) and common law, and the policy issues that arise from this scheme. When the workers’ compensation scheme is superimposed on the common law system, it immunizes the corporation for corporate torts while leaving directors open to suit if they do not purchase special coverage. Their liability is then determined by common law principles.

In Hall v Stewart, the director, Stewart, did not purchase additional insurance, leading the Court of Appeal to conclude he could be held personally liable for the tort of the corporation under the two-step Anns/Kamloops test (from Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen, 1984 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1984] 2 SCR 2). This post will discuss two issues arising from this decision; first, the policy issue this scheme engenders, which should have been addressed under the second step of the Anns/Kamloops test, and second, the influence of Nielsen Estate v Epton, 2006 ABCA 382 (CanLII), affm’g 2006 ABQB 21 (CanLII), on this decision, which the Court of Appeal did not apply.

Mennillo v Intramodal inc.: The Supreme Court of Canada Revisits the Oppression Remedy

By Jassmine Girgis

On February 17, 2017

In Corporate / Commercial, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Jassmine Girgis

PDF Version: Mennillo v Intramodal inc.: The Supreme Court of Canada Revisits the Oppression Remedy

Case Commented On: Mennillo v Intramodal inc., 2016 SCC 51 (CanLII)

Mennillo v Intramodal inc. is the first oppression remedy case since BCE Inc. v 1976 Debentureholders 2008 SCC 69 (CanLII) (BCE) to reach the Supreme Court of Canada. The SCC had to determine whether the failure of a company to observe formalities required under the Canada Business Corporations Act, RSC 1985, c C-44 (CBCA) constituted oppression as against a former shareholder. The appeal of the former shareholder was dismissed on a finding that neither “sloppy paperwork on its own” nor “the corporation and its controlling shareholder treating [the former shareholder] exactly as he wanted to be treated” (at para 5) constituted oppression. There was a majority opinion (written by Cromwell J), a concurring opinion (McLachlin CJ and Moldaver J), and a strong dissent by Justice Côté.

This post deals with the comments made by the Court, including the dissent, on the oppression remedy. The oppression remedy is available when the court is satisfied that the corporation or its directors acted in a way that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to, or that unfairly disregards the interests of, any security holder, creditor, director, or officer (CBCA, s 241(2)).

When is a Contract between Family Members Enforceable?

By Evaristus Oshionebo

On March 17, 2016

In Contracts, Corporate / Commercial

By: Evaristus Oshionebo

PDF Version: When is a Contract between Family Members Enforceable?

Case Commented On: Hole v Hole, 2016 ABCA 34

At common law a contract is not enforceable unless the parties intended the contract to create legal relations. Whether or not the parties intended to create legal relations is determined objectively by examining the circumstances existing at the time of execution of the contract. However, there is a general presumption that contracts between family members are not intended to create legal relations. This presumption “derives from experience of life and human nature which shows that in such circumstances men and women usually do not intend to create legal rights and obligations, but intend to rely solely on family ties of mutual trust and affection” (Jones v Padavatton, [1969] 2 All ER 616 at 621 (CA)). The presumption is equally based on the reality that agreements between family members are usually not bargained or negotiated. However, the presumption is rebuttable by evidence. Thus, a contract between family members is enforceable where there is evidence that the parties intended the contract to create legal relations. The presumption could be rebutted by evidence showing that, although the parties are family members, the contract was reached or executed in commercial circumstances. As Professor John McCamus puts it, “[c]ommercial arrangements between family members may obviously be intended to create enforceable agreements” (John D. McCamus, The Law of Contracts, 2^nd ed at 133).

Category: Corporate / Commercial Page 2 of 5

Applying the Rule in Foss v Harbottle to Limited Partnerships

Bidders Do Not Owe Duties of Fairness and Honesty to Other Bidders in Tendering Competitions

Director Liability and the Workers’ Compensation Scheme: The Divergence Between Policy Goals and Outcomes

Mennillo v Intramodal inc.: The Supreme Court of Canada Revisits the Oppression Remedy

When is a Contract between Family Members Enforceable?