Laurentian Bank of Canada v. Lau

Laurentian Bank of Canada v. Lau

The Court held there was nothing in the record to suggest Mr. Boyer acted beyond the course and scope of his employment and no basis existed to interfere with the summary judgment dismissing the appellants' counterclaim against him; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
C42303
Parties
Plaintiff; Respondent to Counterclaim: Laurentian Bank of Canada; Appellant; Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Chi Yeung Lau also known as Mingo Lau; Appellant; Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Pao Chee Lau also known as Pollyanna Lau; Defendant to the Counterclaim; Respondent: Craig L. Boyer; Defendant to the Counterclaim; Respondent: KPMG Inc.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment of the Superior Court of Justice
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Vicarious Liability, Scope of Employment, Counterclaim Dismissal, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Banking Employment Law Procedural Law Summary Judgment Vicarious Liability Scope of Employment Counterclaim Dismissal +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laurentian Bank of Canada

Plaintiff; Respondent to Counterclaim

Chi Yeung Lau also known as Mingo Lau

Appellant; Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Pao Chee Lau also known as Pollyanna Lau

Appellant; Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Craig L. Boyer

Defendant to the Counterclaim; Respondent

KPMG Inc.

Defendant to the Counterclaim; Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment of the Superior Court of Justice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants could pursue claims against the bank manager personally
  2. 2 Whether there was evidence that the manager acted beyond the course and scope of employment
  3. 3 Whether the summary judgment disposing of the counterclaim against the manager should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held there was nothing in the record to suggest Mr. Boyer acted beyond the course and scope of his employment and no basis existed to interfere with the summary judgment dismissing the appellants' counterclaim against him; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000 including disbursements and G.S.T.
  • No interference with the Superior Court summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim against Craig L. Boyer