Mission Contractors Ltd. v. Murphy

Mission Contractors Ltd. v. Murphy

Applicants failed to meet the heavy onus to show the actions were plainly and obviously abusive or that the president lacked authority; s.143 BCA and subsequent ratification, together with evidence that the president managed day-to-day operations and emergent circumstances (including directors authorizing account access), supported implied authority to commence litigation under Bajwa; corporate counsel was found to represent the company alone and not be conflicted in a disqualifying way, therefore the applications to strike and to remove counsel were dismissed.

Citation
2026 BCSC 459
Parties
Petitioner/plaintiff: Mission Contractors Ltd.; Respondent/defendant: Jon Murphy; Respondent/defendant: Scott Roberge
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike for Abuse of Process (rule 9 5(1)) / Hearing and Judgment on Application
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Corporate Neutrality/conflict of Interest, Derivative Action, Directors' Fiduciary Duties, Misappropriation of Corporate Funds, Stay/strike Applications, Costs
Source Language
English
Corporate Law Civil Procedure Corporate Governance Professional Responsibility Abuse of Process Corporate Neutrality/conflict of Interest Derivative Action Directors' Fiduciary Duties +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mission Contractors Ltd.

Petitioner/plaintiff

Jon Murphy

Respondent/defendant

Scott Roberge

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike for Abuse of Process (rule 9 5(1)) / Hearing and Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the president was validly authorized to retain counsel and commence litigation on behalf of the corporation
  2. 2 Whether the actions are a sham or an abuse of process brought for improper purposes (leverage in a shareholders' dispute)
  3. 3 Whether the litigation relates to internal corporate affairs rather than the business of the company

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants failed to meet the heavy onus to show the actions were plainly and obviously abusive or that the president lacked authority; s.143 BCA and subsequent ratification, together with evidence that the president managed day-to-day operations and emergent circumstances (including directors authorizing account access), supported implied authority to commence litigation under Bajwa; corporate counsel was found to represent the company alone and not be conflicted in a disqualifying way, therefore the applications to strike and to remove counsel were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants' applications to strike the petition and NOCC and to remove corporate counsel are dismissed
  • Unless parties wish to make submissions on costs, the usual order will apply and costs will be awarded to the plaintiff and petitioner