Pereira v. Dexterra Group Inc

2025 BCSC 621 Pereira v. Dexterra Group Inc

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Pereira v. Dexterra Group Inc, 2025 BCSC 621 Date: 20250403 Docket: S22228 Registry: Terrace Between: Corinne Pereira Plaintiff And Dexterra Group Inc and Pulver Crawford Munroe LLP and Unite Here Local 40 Defendants Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Harvey Reasons for Judgment The Plaintiff, appearing in person C. Pereira Counsel for the Defendant, Pulver Crawford Munroe LLP: A.M. Cruise J.K. Lockhart Counsel for the Defendant, Unite Here Local 40: C. Allevato Place and Date of Hearing: Terrace, B.C. January 28, 2025 Place and Date of Judgment: Terrace, B.C. April 3, 2025 Introduction [1] This is an application by the defendant law firm, Pulver Crawford Munroe LLP (the "applicant"), to have the plaintiff's claim against it struck as failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and/or failing to plead material facts that might support a cause of action, and to have the law firm's name removed from the style of cause. [2] The plaintiff's claim asserts five separate causes of action against the applicant: civil fraud; abuse of process; breach of settlement agreement; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and fraud upon the court. [3] The applicant submits that the pleadings, as structured, make out none of the alleged causes of action nor could they be amended in such a fashion as to support any of the claims

advanced. The applicant also seeks lump sum costs and an order dispensing with the plaintiff's signature on the form of order resulting from its application. The Background [4] The background to this matter is complex. The three defendants are, respectively, the plaintiff's former employer, Dexterra Group Inc. ("Dexterra"), Dexterra's counsel, the applicant, and the union which represented the plaintiff throughout her dealings with her former employer, Unite Here Local 40 ("Unite"). [5] The simplest way to provide the historical backdrop is to refer to reasons issued in a similar application brought by Unite (indexed as Pereira v. Dexterra Group Inc, 2025 BCSC 620), released this same day. [6] Those reasons set out the extensive litigation history involving the plaintiff, these three defendants and other related entities which all, in some fashion, stem from her employment and, ultimately, its termination. [7] This action arises out of discipline proceedings commenced by Dexterra, which resulted in the termination of the plaintiff in or about September 2020. [8] Unite represented the plaintiff throughout the grievance procedure. [9] Following her termination, the plaintiff brought proceedings before the B.C. Labor Relations Board alleging fraud and collusion as between Unite and Dexterra in respect of the termination settlement agreement. [10] The matters raised against Unite

were litigated and dismissed, initially by the B.C. Labour Relations Board, then in these courts in proceedings indexed at Pereira v. British Columbia Labour Relations Board, 2022 BCSC 1205, aff'd 2023 BCCA 165, and Pereira v. British Columbia Labour Relations Board, 2024 BCCA 158. [11] The applicant was not a party to the settlement agreement nor any of the prior proceedings, but rather acted at all material times as counsel for Dexterra. [12] Amongst the allegations contained in the notice of civil claim as against the applicant are the following: PCM Lawyers, acting on behalf of Dexterra, made a critical error by drafting and defending documents that admitted Dexterra's client had committed quasi-criminal and criminal offenses. This admission, combined with the firm's misuse of privilege, created a serious conflict of interest. To protect themselves from potential malpractice claims and reputational damage, PCM Lawyers acted overzealously on behalf of Dexterra, prioritizing the concealment of their mistakes and their client's illegal conduct over a just resolution of the case. Since the mediation in March 2021, PCM Lawyers have consistently invoked privilege to shield documents related to my wrongful termination from judicial scrutiny, despite knowing that privilege does not cover criminal actions. This misuse of privilege has obstructed justice and cost me, especially in

the WCAT and LRB proceedings, where PCM Lawyers protected the union despite knowing it was guilty. I ultimately lost at WCAT and am still awaiting the bill for those proceedings. Their relentless legal tactics over the course of 3.5 years culminated in the most reprehensible conduct of soliciting suicide, in a desperate attempt to continue covering up their malpractice and Dexterra's crimes. PCM Lawyers' actions have not only delayed my access to justice but have also intensified the emotional and financial toll on me, as they pursued abusive legal strategies to protect their own interests rather than seeking a fair resolution. By engaging in bad faith legal practices and ignoring ethical standards, PCM Lawyers have contributed to a sustained abuse of process, shielding their client from liability while exacerbating the harm caused to me. Their conduct shows a clear intent to cover up both Dexterra's illegal actions and their own malpractice, even at the cost of human life. Quasi-Criminal Offense under the Workers Compensation Act: Under Division 6, Sections 47 and 48 of the Workers Compensation Act, an employer who retaliates against an employee for reporting workplace safety issues is committing a quasi-criminal offense. The WCA prohibits employers from taking any action that discourages or punishes employees for fulfilling their legal duty to report unsafe work conditions

to, which includes bullying and harassment. Unlike the criminal code this includes reporting to the employer not just WorkSafe. So if a worker makes a complaint to their employer that they're being bullied and the employer terminates them for making the complaint than that constitutes a prohibited action and is a violation of a statute. Workers Compensation Act, RSBC 2019, c 1 CIVIL FRAUD as against Dexterra Group Inc, Unite Here Local 40 & Pulver Crawford Munroe LLP 1. On September 6, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed a motion to reconsider, making the damages resulting from the fraudulent settlement agreement final.

2. Both Dexterra and the union entered into the settlement agreement knowing it was based on false premises which PCM drafted to benefit their client's interests. PCM, under Mr Crawford's direction and influence, crafted the employer's particulars, settlement agreement, and release, with full knowledge of the falsehoods on which they relied.

3. PCM Lawyers not only knew that my termination was wrongful under common law but also understood that it constituted a violation of statutory law.

4. Both All parties were fully aware that this fraudulent agreement would cause me financial loss.

5. They knowingly benefited from this agreement by avoiding the costs of arbitration and paying me significantly less than what I was rightfully entitled to receive.

6. Pursuant to the tort of civil fraud, I am entitled to damages resulting from the fraudulent settlement agreement, as well as any additional damages that arise as a consequence of this deceitful conduct. ABUSE OF PROCESS as against Dexterra Group Inc & Pulver Crawford Munroe LLP Abuse of Process by Brittney Dumbanowski: 7. Dumbanowski is defending a different case where Dexterra is not the defendant but would expose them for their misconduct.

8. Dumbanowski filed a false application in the BC Court of Appeal, not to address legitimate legal concerns, but to mislead the court and burden me with an unnecessary $9,000 costs order. Her actions were intended to obstruct justice in the hopes that I would not provide the security which would open the door to have my appeal dismissed, further protecting Dexterra's interests.

9. Dumbanowski submitted fabricated costs, falsely claiming the respondent would suffer prejudice. This was a clear misuse of court procedures designed to manipulate the legal system to my disadvantage, without any legitimate basis. Abuse of Process by Dexterra and PCM Lawyers: 10. After I publicly tagged PCM Lawyers on social media for the first time and filed the employer's particulars in the PIPA claim, both Dexterra and their legal team at PCM Lawyers escalated their legal actions, not to seek justice, but to silence me and protect themselves from public exposure. Their aim was to obstruct my case and avoid the consequences of their wrongdoing.

11. Despite a prior settlement agreement that should have prevented their applications, Dexterra and PCM Lawyers filed multiple baseless applications to obstruct my PIPA claim. These applications were intended to frustrate and harass me, rather than resolve the matter fairly.

12. Their motive for breaching the settlement agreement and refiling the application was rooted in PCM Lawyers' desperation to prevent the findings in the PIPA claim from exposing their fraud on the courts. The findings found in the PIPA claim would have brought their longstanding pattern of deceit and manipulation into the open, revealing the depths of their misconduct. The refiling was not a genuine pursuit of justice but a last-ditch attempt to conceal the fraudulent foundation on which they had repeatedly misled the courts and shielded Dexterra from accountability. BREACH OF SETTLEMENT as against Dexterra Group Inc & Pulver Crawford Munroe LLP 13. Dexterra agreed in a settlement that they would not file any applications to dismiss or hinder my PIPA claim. Despite this they broke the agreement by filing applications.

14. This breach of the agreement caused delays in my case and has caused significant emotional distress. I reserve the right to amend this claim to seek additional damages arising from the defendants' continued breach of the settlement agreement. Should the court's rulings or any future actions by Dexterra and PCM Lawyers further exacerbate the harm caused by their violation of the agreement, I will amend this claim to reflect the full extent of the damages suffered. This includes, but is not limited to, any further delays, legal costs, or emotional distress that result from their ongoing bad faith actions and misuse of the legal process. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS as against Dexterra Group Inc & Pulver Crawford Munroe LLP 15. Dexterra and PCM Lawyers engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, fully aware of my emotional vulnerability. They knew about my fragile emotional state, including the loss of my emotional support dog and my clear communication that if I was pushed to hard it would result in my death. Despite this knowledge, they chose to escalate their actions in direct violation of a clear settlement agreement.

16. After I tagged PCM Lawyers on social media, linking them to their client for the first time, and filing the employer's particulars, they retaliated by refiling an application that had already been decided. Their decision to refile the application was not driven by any legitimate legal need but was a desperate and malicious attempt to obstruct the upcoming trial because they knew the whole truth was about to be exposed. They needed to refile their application to prevent the court from deciding my application where the employer's particulars would be discussed.

17. Their actions were solely aimed at causing me further emotional harm in an attempt to stop the trial and my application, knowing that it would bring to light the full extent of their misconduct. By wilfully breaching the settlement agreement and attempting to re-litigate settled issues, they acted with the explicit intent to pressure me emotionally, forcing me into a complete breakdown, or worse, to solicit suicide, in order to stop the truth from coming out.

18. The defendants acted with full intent to cause harm. They knew their actions would lead to significant emotional distress, yet they chose to move forward with their desperate legal maneuver to protect themselves and their client. Their violation of the settlement agreement was a deliberate tactic to cause me harm and obstruct justice, with no regard for the consequences to my mental health.

19. As a direct result of the defendants' actions, I suffered emotional distress and mental anguish. FRAUD ON THE COURT as against Pulver Crawford Munroe LLP 20. The elements of civil fraud including false representation, knowledge of falsehood, inducement, and resulting loss, align closely with fraud on the court.

21. PCM's actions constitute fraud on the court by meeting the required elements of intentional deception, material impact, and undermining judicial integrity. First, PCM knowingly submitted false information, including misrepresenting my termination as "for cause" and relying on a flawed LRB decision they knew to be inaccurate. PCM further used a settlement agreement they knew was based on fraudulent premises to accuse me of re-litigating settled issues and abusing the court's processes. These intentional misrepresentations were designed to mislead the courts and secure dismissals of my claims, more specifically my defamation claim 21140.

22. Second, these misrepresentations materially impacted the court's decisions by unfairly portraying my actions as abusive, which led to the dismissal of my legitimate claims and forced me to pay Dexterra's legal costs. Lastly, PCM's actions undermined the integrity of the judicial process by using falsehoods to obstruct a fair outcome. Fraud in civil matters involves deceit that produces an unjust result, and PCM's conduct here meets this standard by manipulating the court and blocking my ability to protect my reputation and hold my employer accountable. Therefore, these elements substantiate a cause of action for fraud on the court.

23. The length, 3.5 years, and breadth, over 20 documents, multiple affidavits, and misrepresentations across every level of court, create a compounded effect, showing not a single lapse in judgment but an orchestrated pattern of deceit. 24. 1 (sic) am entitled to damages for the years of emotional and mental distress caused by the injustices and in not being able to vindicate my reputation, as well as reimbursement for any costs I have been unfairly required to pay, and all expenses I've incurred.

25. PCM's fraudulent conduct, including repeated misrepresentations to the court, caused ongoing emotional and psychological harm, which severely impacted my ability to work. The trauma of Dexterra's betrayal, compounded by PCM's deliberate misuse of the judicial process, left me unable to re-enter the workforce for three years. I was instead forced to dedicate time and resources to seeking justice, resulting in substantial lost wages and financial hardship, all stemming from the fraudulent settlement agreement. [13] Despite the allegation of "fraud upon the court", there is no relief sought setting aside the earlier decisions of the B.C. Labour Relations Board, this Court or the Court of Appeal which dealt with many of the issues upon which the plaintiff's claims set out herein are founded. [14] In particular, the plaintiff has not specifically sought to set aside the decision in Pereira v. British Columbia Labour Relations Board, 2022 BCSC 1205 aff'd 2023 BCCA 165, leave to appeal to SCC ref'd, 40748 (21 December 2023), in which the Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal from a failed judicial review application seeking to set aside the B.C. Labour Relations Board's determination that Unite acted properly in its representation of her during the grievance procedure that ended with her termination. The Supreme Court of Canada refused to grant leave to appeal the

decision. Legal Principles [15] The applicant relies on Rule 9-5(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, which reads as follows: (1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that (a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be, and the court may pronounce judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed or dismissed and may order the costs of the application to be paid as special costs. [16] A pleading may be struck pursuant to Rule 9-5(1)(a) where it is plain and obvious that the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, has no reasonable prospect of success, or if it is certain to fail: Willow v. Chong, 2013 BCSC 1083 at para. 18. [17] In making that determination, the Court assumes the facts pleaded are true unless they are manifestly incapable of proof or are based on assumptions and speculation. The Court is entitled to sceptically analyse pleadings and must not consider what evidence adduced in future might or might not show: R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42 at paras. 17-25; Young v. Borzoni et al, 2007 BCCA 16 at paras. 30-31. Further, where pleadings make wide-sweeping and inflammatory accusations the court is entitled to treat these as speculation and not true: Mousa v. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic

Engineers, Incorporated, 2014 BCSC 186 at para. 21, aff'd 2014 BCCA 415; citing Stephen v. HMTQ, 2008 BCSC 1656 at para. 60; Young v. Borzoni, 2007 BCCA 16 at paras. 30-32. [18] Finally, as the applicant notes, I need not assume facts pleaded are true if the fact has been established to be untrue in prior proceedings to which res judicata applies: see e.g. Pereira v. Unite Here Local 40, 2022 BCSC 1450 at para. 26, aff'd 2024 BCCA 27. [19] In considering an application to strike under Rule 9-5, the court should consider whether defective pleadings can be corrected by way of an amendment and whether it would be appropriate to give leave to do so: Willow at para.

23. Discussion Civil Fraud [20] There is nothing in the notice of civil claim alleging, as against the applicant, the elements necessary to establish a claim in civil fraud. [21] Those four elements are: (1) a false representation made by the defendant; (2) some level of knowledge of the falsehood of the representation on the part of the defendant (either knowledge or recklessness); (3) the false representation caused the plaintiff to act; and (4) the plaintiff's action resulted in a loss: see Bruno Appliance and Furniture, Inc. v. Hryniak, 2014 SCC 8 at para. 21. [22] Without a false representation upon which the plaintiff acted, there can be no claim for civil fraud. [23] Here, there is nothing alleged to have been stated by the applicant upon which the plaintiff alleges she relied. Through the pleadings, the plaintiff makes clear that she was at all times aware that the termination settlement agreement was fraudulent or false. She can hardly now say she relied upon those representations to her detriment knowing, as she says she did, that they were false. [24] I am therefore satisfied that the plaintiff's claim in civil fraud is bound to fail. Abuse of Process [25] To establish the tort of abuse of process, there must have been previous court proceedings advanced against the now plaintiff, by the now defendant. Assuming such existed, which I have concluded it does not, the

tort itself has three elements: (1) a collateral and improper purpose outside of what might be achieved against the person against whom the claim is made; (2) a definite act or threat; and (3) damages resulting to the plaintiff from the wrongful use of the legal process: see Oei v. Hui, 2020 BCCA 214 at paras. 5-6. [26] I am satisfied that the prerequisite of litigation proceedings between the plaintiff and the applicant is lacking in this case. That is, I agree with the applicant that the plaintiff's claim for tortious abuse of process must fail because there have been no prior proceedings to which she and the applicant were parties. Rather, the applicant acted at all materials times as counsel to Dexterra and therefore cannot be liable to the plaintiff for the tort of abuse of process. [27] In any event, there is no conduct alleged by the plaintiff which conforms to the test for abuse of process. More specifically, beyond the plaintiff's wide-sweeping and inflammatory accusations which I am entitled to treat as speculative and not true, there is no allegation of any collateral or inappropriate motive that extends beyond the normal purpose of litigation. [28] Hence, I agree with the applicant that the claim for tortious abuse of process is bound to fail. Breach of the Settlement Agreement [29] This portion of the claim as against the applicant is bound to fail because there is

no settlement agreement to which the applicant was a party. The contract was with the plaintiff's former employer, Dexterra. The applicant could hardly have breached a contract to which it was not a party. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress [30] The tort of intentional infliction of harm or emotional distress requires: (1) flagrant or outrageous conduct; (2) calculated to produce harm; and (3) resulting in a visible and provable illness: Young at para. 24. [31] The plaintiff can point to no specific allegation of flagrant or outrageous conduct on the part of the applicant other than hyperbolic assertions of such as demonstrated by the following extract of her pleadings: 43. Prior to drafting the particulars Mr Crawford was provided with an abundance of evidence showing that his client was violating safety regulations by not investigating my complaints that I was being mobbed.

60. PCM on behalf of their client filed a response to the defamation claim 21140. In the response they falsely stated, The Plaintiff was employed by Horizon North at its Crossroads Lodge in Kitimat, British Columbia, until she was terminated with cause on September 23, 2020. On or about September 23, 2020, Horizon North terminated the Plaintiff's employment for conduct during her leave of absence that continued to violate the Respectful Workplace Policy 61. On Aug 17, PCM on behalf of their client filed an affidavit of Brad Rickard for file 21140, BCSC. In the affidavit was knowingly false information. The Plaintiff, Corinne Pereira, was an employee of Horizon North at its Crossroads Lodge in Kitimat, British Columbia, until she was terminated with cause on September 23, 2020. On September 23, 2020, Horizon North terminated the Plaintiff for cause, citing the Plaintiff's conduct and behaviour during her leave of absence, which continued to violate Horizon North's Respectful Workplace Policy 70. On May 26, PCM on behalf of their client filed an amended application in BCSC file 21140. In the amended application they falsely stated, The Plaintiff was employed by Horizon North at its Crossroads Lodge in Kitimat, British Columbia, until she was terminated with cause on September 23, 2020 Furthermore, the Plaintiff currently has an action before the Provincial Court for "civil conspiracy" against Ms. K and Ms. M, arising from the same alleged defamatory statements made about the Plaintiff in the course of their employment.

72. Justice Punnett relied on the LRB's decisions to conclude that my claim fell under labour relations jurisdiction and had already been resolved. However, PCM Lawyers knew these LRB decisions were inaccurate and based on a false belief that the settlement was fair. Despite this, PCM still used the flawed decisions to support their arguments.

79. On Jan 13, 2023 PCM on behalf of their client filed factum for an appeal of the judicial review of the LRB's decisions, file no 48412, BCCA. In the factum they falsely stated, In September 2020, Ms. Pereira's employment was terminated with cause. On or about September 23, 2020, Horizon North terminated the Appellant's employment for behaviour that continued to violate Horizon North's Respectful Workplace policy with harassing, disrespecting, and threatening behaviour towards employees of Horizon North. [32] The above includes a sampling of the facts pleaded on behalf of Dexterra by the applicant law firm. Those facts, in the main, have subsequently found to be true in judicial proceedings before the B.C. Labor Relations Board, before the Supreme Court of British Columbia and ultimately in the British Columbia Court of Appeal. [33] More importantly, beyond wide-sweeping and inflammatory accusations, the plaintiff has not pointed me to any conduct on behalf of the applicant, as counsel for Dexterra, which could be characterised as flagrant or outrageous. It is settled that in litigation "much may be done that is intentionally and necessarily directed towards injuring the opposing party's interest": Lawrence v. Sandilands, 2003 BCSC 211 at para.

77. In this case, the plaintiff has provided no basis on which to conclude that the applicant's conduct went beyond that which is appropriate for a zealous advocate, much less that that the applicant was conducting itself in a manner calculated to cause a recognized psychiatric illness: see Young at para. 35. [34] On that basis, I am satisfied that the plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is bound to fail. Fraud on the Court [35] A claim for fraud on the court requires a plaintiff to meet a four-part test: 1) prove the fraud on the balance of probabilities with clear and cogent evidence; 2) show that the plaintiff did not have knowledge of the fraud or the evidence necessary to prove the fraud at the time of the initial trial; 3) the fraud must have affected the result in the judgment but the party need not show that it was a determining factor; and 4) prove there was no undue delay. See Red Branch Investments Limited v. Long, 2024 BCSC 1588 at para. 32; citing Canada v. Granitile Inc., 2008 CanLII 63568 (Ont. S.C.J.) at paras. 25, 282, and 319. [36] Here, the applicant has provided no basis, much less "clear and cogent evidence", on which to conclude that the decision of the B.C. Labour Relations Board was "inaccurate", that the applicant knew of that inaccuracy, or that the applicant made material misrepresentations and thereby conducted a fraud

on the court. [37] In any event, as noted in the parallel application brought by Unite, the plaintiff acknowledges that she knew, at all material times and well before the commencement of this proceeding, all of the "facts" she alleged demonstrate a fraud upon the court. Such is fatal to her claim. Conclusion [38] In sum, I am satisfied that the plaintiff's claims against the applicant disclose no reasonable cause of action and are bound to fail. [39] In my view, it would not be appropriate, given the history of the litigation involving the plaintiff, to grant her leave to amend her pleadings. Further, I cannot conceive of any amendment to the pleadings, as they relate to the defendant law firm, that would lead to a different result: see e.g. Tan v. British Columbia (Social Development and Poverty Reduction), 2024 BCSC 786 at para. 21. [40] In the result, the action against the law firm is dismissed and the notice of civil claim style of cause will be amended to delete reference to the law firm. [41] Pursuant to Rule 14-1(15), I allow lump-sum costs of $2,000, representing the one-day hearing this matter occupied together with all antecedent costs including the filing of the response to notice of civil claim and all other steps taken in the litigation. [42] Finally, the signature of the plaintiff on the form of order is dispensed with. The applicant will provide the plaintiff with an entered copy of the order forthwith upon entry. "Harvey J."