Sharp v. Royal Mutual Funds Inc.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: 2019 BCSC 2357
Parties: Plaintiff: William Sharp; Plaintiff: Dianne Sharp; Defendant: Royal Mutual Funds Inc.
Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 20 September 2019
Procedural Posture: Class Action Certification / Interlocutory Application Regarding Certification and Admissibility of Affidavit Evidence
Outcome: Application granted in part and denied in part
Legal Topics: Certification Test Under S.4 Class Proceedings Act, Compliance With Rule 8 1 (notice of Application), Admissibility of Affidavit Evidence (rule 22 2(13)), Expert Evidence Admissibility (mohan), Aggregate Monetary Relief and Preferability, Class Definition and Representative Adequacy, Costs
Source Language: english

Class Actions Civil Procedure Evidence Contract Law Fiduciary Duty Unjust Enrichment Securities Regulation Certification Test Under S.4 Class Proceedings Act +6 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2

Parties

William Sharp

Plaintiff

Dianne Sharp

Plaintiff

Royal Mutual Funds Inc.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Class Action Certification / Interlocutory Application Regarding Certification and Admissibility of Affidavit Evidence

Legal Issues

1 Whether plaintiffs' notice of application complied with Rule 8-1(4)
2 Appropriate remedy for non-compliance with Rule 8-1
3 Whether specific affidavits (Sharp, Fulton, Cumming) are admissible and to what extent

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' notice of application failed to comply with Rule 8-1(4) because it did not adequately set out the factual and legal bases for certification; dismissal or stay was refused, but plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended notice by October 4, 2019; specified inadmissible paragraphs in the Sharp affidavits were struck for failing to identify sources and plaintiffs were granted leave to refile compliant affidavits; Fulton affidavits (public documents) were admissible for the limited purpose asserted; Dr. Cumming's expert reports were admissible for the certification hearing under the common law Mohan threshold though not under trial Rule 11-6; costs to defendant in the...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and denied in part

Orders

Court finds plaintiffs' notice of application fails to comply with Rule 8-1(4) but refuses to dismiss or stay the certification application
Plaintiffs granted leave to file and deliver an amended notice of application by October 4, 2019

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.