B & L Holdings Inc. v. SNFW Fitness BC Ltd.

B & L Holdings Inc. v. SNFW Fitness BC Ltd.

The appeal was allowed because the defendants, as applicants for summary dismissal, failed to establish there was no genuine issue for trial by not addressing the pleaded allegation that continued use of the celebrity endorsement was illegal under California law and FTC guidance; the chambers judge erred by shifting the evidentiary onus to the plaintiff.

Citation
2018 BCCA 221
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: B & L Holdings Inc.; Respondent / Defendant: SNFW Fitness BC Ltd.; Respondent / Defendant: Mark Mastrov; Respondent / Defendant: Leonard Schlemm
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Summary Judgment/strike Application / Court of Appeal Judgment on R.9 6 Summary Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; summary dismissal set aside
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Illegality/public Policy, Celebrity Endorsement, FTC Endorsement Guidance, Choice of Law
Source Language
English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Consumer Protection/advertising Law Summary Judgment Illegality/public Policy Celebrity Endorsement FTC Endorsement Guidance +1 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B & L Holdings Inc.

Appellant / Plaintiff

SNFW Fitness BC Ltd.

Respondent / Defendant

Mark Mastrov

Respondent / Defendant

Leonard Schlemm

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Summary Judgment/strike Application / Court of Appeal Judgment on R.9 6 Summary Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants discharged the onus on summary judgment to show there was no genuine issue for trial
  2. 2 Whether continued use of a celebrity endorsement after the celebrity ceased involvement rendered the licence illegal under California law and FTC guidance
  3. 3 Allocation of evidentiary burden on a R.9-6 summary dismissal application

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the defendants, as applicants for summary dismissal, failed to establish there was no genuine issue for trial by not addressing the pleaded allegation that continued use of the celebrity endorsement was illegal under California law and FTC guidance; the chambers judge erred by shifting the evidentiary onus to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary dismissal set aside

Orders

  • Set aside the chambers judge's dismissal of B & L's claim against SNFW Fitness BC Ltd.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to B & L Holdings Inc.