Andrus v. Sihata

Andrus v. Sihata

Master Young ordered that the defendants must provide within seven days particulars of the express or implied contractual terms alleged breached and must particularize ascertainable (special) damages by providing a ledger or highlighted documents identifying unauthorized fuel, cellular and other charges and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 BCSC 12
Parties
Plaintiffs: David Andrus and Donna Andrus; Defendants: Anna Sihata, Paul Sihata and Kelowna Auto Towing (89) Ltd.; Defendants by Counterclaim: David Andrus, Donna Andrus and Greg Andrus
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Breach of Share Purchase Agreement; Counterclaim for Conversion, Set Off and Damages / Application for Particulars (pre Trial Interlocutory)
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Particulars, Discovery, Special Damages, Set Off, Fraud/dishonesty Allegations, Loss of Goodwill, Expert Evidence
Source Language
english
Contract Civil Procedure Tort Conversion Commercial Law Particulars Discovery Special Damages Set Off +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Andrus and Donna Andrus

Plaintiffs

Anna Sihata, Paul Sihata and Kelowna Auto Towing (89) Ltd.

Defendants

David Andrus, Donna Andrus and Greg Andrus

Defendants by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Civil Breach of Share Purchase Agreement; Counterclaim for Conversion, Set Off and Damages / Application for Particulars (pre Trial Interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants must provide particulars of the alleged breaches of the share purchase and employment agreements
  2. 2 Whether defendants must quantify and particularize ascertainable (special) damages prior to discovery/trial
  3. 3 Distinction between particulars and discovery and whether a demand for particulars can force a party to synthesize voluminous documents

Ratio Decidendi

Master Young ordered that the defendants must provide within seven days particulars of the express or implied contractual terms alleged breached and must particularize ascertainable (special) damages by providing a ledger or highlighted documents identifying unauthorized fuel, cellular and other charges and particulars of goods sold or converted including dates and values; allegations of incompetence/dishonesty (fraudulent conduct) must be particularized; no particulars ordered for general damages (loss of business/goodwill) which require expert proof; costs awarded to plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Defendants must provide within seven days particulars of each express or implied term of the Share Purchase Agreement and employment agreements alleged to have been breached, specifying whether term was express or implied and whether written or verbal.
  • Defendants must provide within seven days particulars in ledger form or by highlighting documents of all unauthorized fuel charges claimed, including dates and amounts.