Kapuscinski v. Aristos Capital Corporation
The motions judge misapplied binding precedents and provided no reasons for dismissing claims against the individual defendants; because the pleadings against Richard A. Knoll could, if proven, establish negligent misrepresentation and officers are not immune for actions taken in the company’s interests, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C33375
- Parties
- Appellant: Richard Kapuscinski; Respondent: Aristos Capital Corporation; Respondent: Chemical Marketers Inc.; Respondent: Airborne Technologies Incorporated; Respondent: J. Murray McCann; Respondent: Richard A. Knoll
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 22 September 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal From Motion Judge
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; the order below dismissing the motion as to defendant Richard A. Knoll is set aside.
- Legal Topics
- Negligent Misrepresentation, Officer Liability, Motions Judge Reasons, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Richard Kapuscinski
Appellant
Aristos Capital Corporation
Respondent
Chemical Marketers Inc.
Respondent
Airborne Technologies Incorporated
Respondent
J. Murray McCann
Respondent
Richard A. Knoll
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Motion Judge
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the pleadings, if proven, establish negligent misrepresentation against Richard A. Knoll
- 2 Whether an officer may be protected from liability for conduct undertaken in the interests of the company
- 3 Whether the motions judge erred by dismissing claims against individuals without reasons and by misapplying precedent
Ratio Decidendi
The motions judge misapplied binding precedents and provided no reasons for dismissing claims against the individual defendants; because the pleadings against Richard A. Knoll could, if proven, establish negligent misrepresentation and officers are not immune for actions taken in the company’s interests, the dismissal as to Knoll was set aside and the appeal allowed in part.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; the order below dismissing the motion as to defendant Richard A. Knoll is set aside.
Orders
- Set aside dismissal as against Richard A. Knoll
- Appellant awarded costs of the appeal and costs below
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Kapuscinski v. Aristos Capital Corporation Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2000-09-22 Docket numbers C33375 Judges Finlayson, George Duncan; Carthy, James Joseph; Simmons, Janet M. Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 2000922 DOCKET: C33375 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: RICHARD KAPUSCINSKI (Appellant) –and– ARISTOS CAPITAL CORPORATION, CHEMICAL MARKETERS INC., AIRBORNE TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, J. MURRAY McCANN and RICHARD A. KNOLL (Respondents) BEFORE: FINLAYSON and CARTHY JJ.A. and SIMMONS J. (ad hoc) COUNSEL: Leigh Ann Osbaldiston, for the appellant Laurel C. Broten, for the respondent HEARD: September 12, 2000 On appeal from the order of The Honourable Mr. Justice Nick Borkovich dated November 25, 1999. E N D O R S E M E N T [1] Counsel for the appellant concedes that the appeal with respect to the named respondent J. Murray McCann is weak. She argues that the pleadings with respect to Richard A. Knoll could have been better but nevertheless would, if proven in evidence, establish the tort of negligent misrepresentation as against him. We agree with this. [2] The motions judge gave no reasons for dismissing the action against both individuals. It is apparent that he did not apply or misapplied the judgments of this court in ScotiaMcLeod Inc. v. Peoples Jewellers Limited (1995), 26 O.R. (3d) 481 (C.A.) and ADGA Systems International Ltd. v. Valcom Ltd. (1999), 43 O.R. (3d) 1010 (C.A.). In these cases, it was held that there was no principled basis for protecting an officer of a company from liability for his alleged conduct on the basis that such conduct was in pursuance of the interests of the company that he represented. [3] Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed, the judgment below is set aside to the extent of dismissing the motion as against the named defendant Richard A. Knoll. [4] The appellant is entitled to its costs of this appeal, here and below. Signed: “G.D. Finlayson J.A.” “J.J. Carthy J.A.” “J. Simmons J. (ad hoc)