Dusanjh v. Appleton

Dusanjh v. Appleton

The Articles, read with the factual matrix (including Mr. Wright's contemporaneous letters and the manner in which shares were issued), are ambiguous but do not demonstrate the requisite certainty of intention to impose enforceable trust obligations: the Founder retained legal title and express retraction/redemption powers, the shares were issued to him personally while the Yun shares were expressly issued to him as trustee, and sophisticated legal advice accompanied formal trust instruments for other assets—therefore no trust for the petitioners was created by Article 27.

Citation
2017 BCSC 340
Parties
Petitioner: Robin Lynne Dusanjh aka Robin Lynne Wright; Petitioner: Ronald David Wright; Petitioner: Randall Robert Wright; Respondent: Mark Appleton; Respondent: Sharon Halkett; Respondent: Tracy Maureen Wright; Respondent: Oak Bay Marina Ltd.; Respondent: Yun Wright aka Yun Kloihofer
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Estate and Trust Dispute / Reasons for Judgment (trial Decision)
Outcome
Petitioners' claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Certainty of Intention, Certainty of Subject Matter, Preferred Shares, Articles of Incorporation, Parol Evidence/factual Matrix, Testamentary Vs Inter Vivos Trust, Redemption and Retraction Rights
Source Language
English
Trusts Estates Corporate Law Contractual Interpretation Wills Certainty of Intention Certainty of Subject Matter Preferred Shares +4 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robin Lynne Dusanjh aka Robin Lynne Wright

Petitioner

Ronald David Wright

Petitioner

Randall Robert Wright

Petitioner

Mark Appleton

Respondent

Sharon Halkett

Respondent

Tracy Maureen Wright

Respondent

Oak Bay Marina Ltd.

Respondent

Yun Wright aka Yun Kloihofer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Estate and Trust Dispute / Reasons for Judgment (trial Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 27 of Oak Bay Marina Ltd.'s Articles establishes a trust in favour of the petitioners
  2. 2 If a trust exists, whether it is testamentary and thus invalid under the Wills Act
  3. 3 If an inter vivos trust exists, whether executors should be removed as trustees

Ratio Decidendi

The Articles, read with the factual matrix (including Mr. Wright's contemporaneous letters and the manner in which shares were issued), are ambiguous but do not demonstrate the requisite certainty of intention to impose enforceable trust obligations: the Founder retained legal title and express retraction/redemption powers, the shares were issued to him personally while the Yun shares were expressly issued to him as trustee, and sophisticated legal advice accompanied formal trust instruments for other assets—therefore no trust for the petitioners was created by Article 27.

Court Disposition

Petitioners' claims dismissed

Orders

  • Claims dismissed with costs to the respondents