Investors Group Financial Services v. MacGillivray

Investors Group Financial Services v. MacGillivray

Adjudicator found the agreements ambiguous and conflicted in characterizing advances as both taxable income and debt, refused to imply a repayment term because business efficacy did not require it, and alternatively found the repayment obligation unenforceable as a restraint of trade given inequality of bargaining...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2003 NSSM 7
Parties
Claimant: Investors Group Financial Services; Claimant: I.G. Investment Management Ltd.; Claimant: Douglas Anthony Bray; Defendant: Ronald G. MacGillivray
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Commission Advances, Consultant Agreement, Implied Terms, Business Efficacy, Unenforceability, Non Compete, Economic Dependence
Source Language
english
Contract Employment Law Restraint of Trade Commercial Law Securities Regulation Commission Advances Consultant Agreement Implied Terms +4 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Investors Group Financial Services

Claimant

I.G. Investment Management Ltd.

Claimant

Douglas Anthony Bray

Claimant

Ronald G. MacGillivray

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether obligation to repay commission advances survives termination of the consultant agreement
  2. 2 Whether the agreements are enforceable or void as restraint of trade or unconscionable given inequality of bargaining power
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was an independent contractor or in a relationship of economic dependence

Ratio Decidendi

Adjudicator found the agreements ambiguous and conflicted in characterizing advances as both taxable income and debt, refused to imply a repayment term because business efficacy did not require it, and alternatively found the repayment obligation unenforceable as a restraint of trade given inequality of bargaining power and unfairness; accordingly no liability to repay and claim dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • No judgment for the Claimants against the Defendant