Canada Case Law

Rona Inc. v. Rockhard Construction Limited

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Court found on the balance of probabilities that Greater Construction Inc. incurred and owed the $253,107.49 debt as evidenced by Rona’s Aged Trial Balance and supporting business records; the corporate veil of Greater Construction was pierced because its directing mind, Saeid Saberi, exploited the company as his alter ego, engaged in dishonest conduct and failed to disclose documents, justifying an adverse inference and personal liability; other corporate entities and individuals (including Navid Saberi) were not shown to be similarly liable; prejudgment interest at 5% per annum for five…

Source excerpt

• Piercing corporate veil
• Directing mind liability
• Debt recovery
• Personal guarantees
• Pre-judgment interest
• Disclosure and adverse inference

Read case analysis

TR3 Geothermal Services Inc. v. Mason

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held that a post-trial order piercing the corporate veil under the Small Claims Act was not appealable under s. 5 and must be challenged by judicial review.

• Small claims act s.5 appeals
• Piercing corporate veil
• Judicial review
• Statutory interpretation
• Procedural requirements for amendments
• Small-claims-act

Read case analysis

TR3 Geothermal Services Inc. v. Mason

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court allowed the judicial review and set aside a Provincial Court order piercing TR3’s corporate veil and imposing personal liability on Mr. Saari.

• Piercing corporate veil
• Res judicata
• Functus officio
• Standard of review
• Small claims procedure
• Payment hearing

Read case analysis

R. v. Steer

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court imposed a six-year global sentence, forfeiture, restitution, broad prohibition orders, and monetary penalties after finding repeated, deliberate Fisheries Act offences.

• Sentencing
• Fisheries act offences
• Forfeiture
• Disgorgement (s.79)
• Prohibition orders
• Piercing corporate veil

Read case analysis

Chapman v. Ing

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Section 22(3)(b) of the OBCA does not constitute a juristic reason defeating an unjust enrichment claim between shareholders in a family-law context; where one party alone invested money, time and effort and the other was enriched without contribution, equity permits reordering of shareholder rights and granting of a proprietary remedy (vesting shares) rather than mere monetary compensation; appellate court will not disturb trial judge's findings absent error.

Source excerpt

• Unjust enrichment
• Proprietary remedy
• Vesting order
• Shareholder rights
• Obca s.22(3)(b)
• Joint family venture

Read case analysis

Beaumont v. Beaumont

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the payments were banked wages and that Bart personally acted as employer such that he and BSSI were liable for unpaid wages; the trial judge's awards of unpaid wages, punitive damages, and substantial indemnity costs were not interfered with because the findings were supported by evidence and appellate deference applied.

Source excerpt

• Unpaid wages
• Banked wages
• Common employer
• Punitive damages
• Indemnity costs
• Piercing corporate veil

Read case analysis

Hon Chung Young v. Yuk Ming Li

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court found trademark infringement, passing off, and depreciation of goodwill for DAHU HOTPOT against 1000237903 Ontario Inc., and granted declarations, injunctions, damages, and costs.

• Trademark infringement
• Passing off
• Depreciation of goodwill
• Piercing corporate veil
• Injunctive and monetary remedies
• Trademark-infringement

Read case analysis

Saccary v. THI Construction and Pettipas

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Prejudgment interest is excluded from the tariff calculation; the amount involved approximated $110,000 which supports Tariff A Scale 2 (basic) plus nine trial days; the Plaintiffs' formal offer to settle of $80,000 triggered a discretionary 50% increase under Rule 10.09 as applied to THI Construction because the judgment was no better than the offer for THI; costs awarded to Plaintiffs against THI were fixed at $45,375 with disbursements reduced and fixed at $14,582, total $59,957; no costs awarded to or against Terry Pettipas and the corporate veil was not pierced.

Source excerpt

• Damages
• Formal offer to settle
• Prejudgment interest
• Piercing corporate veil
• Tariff a
• Trial scale determination

Read case analysis

Perks v. Hetti Group Inc.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is dismissed: the motion judge properly concluded there was no genuine issue for trial, correctly found Sugi Financial acted as agent for the Hetti Group for the October 2017 communication which constituted an acknowledgement of debt under s.13 of the Limitations Act even though it did not specify an amount, and correctly pierced the corporate veil because the Hetti Group was a sham and its controlling minds misappropriated investor funds, thereby making them personally liable; costs were fixed at $5,000.

Source excerpt

• Piercing corporate veil
• Summary judgment
• Limitations period
• Acknowledgement of debt
• Agency
• Fraud and misappropriation

Read case analysis

Saccary v. THI Construction Limited and Pettipas

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

THI repudiated the construction contract by failing to remedy defects and abandoning performance; that repudiation was accepted by the Saccarys, entitling them to damages. The court awarded $24,500 (plus HST) to Donald Saccary for agreed excavation/demolition work and $71,108 for costs to remedy building defects (total $95,608) plus HST and 5% prejudgment interest. The corporate veil was not pierced and Pettipas is not personally liable. No general damages for mental distress were awarded and no reduction for failure to mitigate was applied.

Source excerpt

• Breach of contract
• Repudiation
• Piercing corporate veil
• Damages
• Limitation
• Quantum meruit

Read case analysis