The Investment Administration Solution Inc. v. Silver Gold Glatt & Grosman LLP

The Investment Administration Solution Inc. v. Silver Gold Glatt & Grosman LLP

The appeal was dismissed because IAS knew the material facts (Quadrexx's decision, respondents' bundled pricing and the applicable ICAO Rules) by the end of 2006 such that the limitations period expired before IAS commenced the action; the Professional Conduct Committee's statement that SGGG 'may have' breached the Rules did not constitute a formal finding nor a new material fact sufficient to defer discoverability under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Citation
2011 ONCA 658
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): The Investment Administration Solution Inc.; Defendant (respondent): Silver Gold Glatt & Grosman LLP; Defendant (respondent): SGGG Fund Services Inc.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment of the Superior Court of Justice
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Intentional Interference With Economic Relations, Inducement of Breach of Contract, Limitations Act Discoverability, Professional Conduct Committee Vs Discipline Committee, Unlawful Conduct in Tort
Source Language
English
Tort Contracts Professional Regulation Civil Procedure Limitations Intentional Interference With Economic Relations Inducement of Breach of Contract Limitations Act Discoverability +2 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Investment Administration Solution Inc.

Plaintiff (appellant)

Silver Gold Glatt & Grosman LLP

Defendant (respondent)

SGGG Fund Services Inc.

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment of the Superior Court of Justice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tort of intentional interference with economic relations was pleaded and actionable
  2. 2 Whether the action was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002
  3. 3 Whether the Professional Conduct Committee's guidance constituted a formal finding of breach or a new discoverable fact that would delay the running of the limitations period

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because IAS knew the material facts (Quadrexx's decision, respondents' bundled pricing and the applicable ICAO Rules) by the end of 2006 such that the limitations period expired before IAS commenced the action; the Professional Conduct Committee's statement that SGGG 'may have' breached the Rules did not constitute a formal finding nor a new material fact sufficient to defer discoverability under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Action dismissed on summary judgment and appeal dismissed.
  • Costs fixed in favour of the respondents in the amount of $13,500 inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes.