Fadelle v. Hoeg

Fadelle v. Hoeg

On the evidence the payments were voluntary transfers by the claimant intended to relieve Pam and Terry; there was no proven undue influence, no evidence that Darren Bishop gave advice or induced the payments, and the defendants failed to meet the onus to prove the transfers were gifts to be recoverable as loans; accordingly claims for recovery fail and are dismissed.

Citation
2012 NSSM 31
Parties
Claimant: Tamala Jane Fadelle; Defendant: Cecil Hoeg; Defendant: Darren Bishop; Defendant: Pam Hoeg; Defendant: Terry Hoeg; Defendant: Richard Hurley
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision
Outcome
All claims dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Gift Versus Loan, Presumption of Resulting Trust, Undue Influence, Advice Liability, Unjust Enrichment
Source Language
English
Equity Trusts Contract Tort (advice/negligence) Gift Versus Loan Presumption of Resulting Trust Undue Influence Advice Liability +1 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tamala Jane Fadelle

Claimant

Cecil Hoeg

Defendant

Darren Bishop

Defendant

Pam Hoeg

Defendant

Terry Hoeg

Defendant

Richard Hurley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payments made by claimant were gifts or loans
  2. 2 Whether undue influence or presumption of influence invalidated any gift
  3. 3 Whether employee advice (Darren Bishop) created liability for financial loss

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the payments were voluntary transfers by the claimant intended to relieve Pam and Terry; there was no proven undue influence, no evidence that Darren Bishop gave advice or induced the payments, and the defendants failed to meet the onus to prove the transfers were gifts to be recoverable as loans; accordingly claims for recovery fail and are dismissed.

Court Disposition

All claims dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Each claim SCAM 352416, SCAM 352417 and SCAM 352418 by the claimant against the defendants is dismissed with no order as to costs.