AI Enterprises Ltd v Bram Enterprises Ltd

Last updated
AI Enterprises Ltd v Bram Enterprises Ltd
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Hearing: May 22, 2013
Judgment: January 31, 2104
Full case nameA.I. Enterprises Ltd. and Alan Schelew v. Bram Enterprises Ltd. and Jamb Enterprises Ltd.
Citations 2014 SCC 12
Docket No. 34863
Prior historyAPPEAL from A.I. Enterprises and Schelew v. Bram Enterprises and Jamb Enterprises 2012 NBCA 33 (12 April 2012), affirming 2010 NBQB 245 (July 22, 2010; unreported)
RulingAppeal dismissed.
Holding
While A.I. and A cannot be found liable to Bram and Jamb on the basis of the unlawful means tort, the trial judge made strong findings that A breached his fiduciary obligations as a director of the family companies and the trial judge's award should be upheld on that basis.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Marshall Rothstein, Thomas Cromwell, Michael Moldaver, Andromache Karakatsanis, Richard Wagner
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons byCromwell J.
Abella and Moldaver JJ. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

AI Enterprises Ltd v Bram Enterprises Ltd 2014 SCC 12 was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that standardized Canadian jurisprudence with respect to the economic tort of unlawful means.

Contents

Background

Lillian Schelew and her sons, Jeffrey, Michael, Bernard and Alan, owned a company named Joyce Avenue Apartments Ltd which was in possession of an apartment building in Moncton, New Brunswick. The four sons owned eighty percent of Joyce, equally divided via two corporate entities, the respondent Bram Enterprises Ltd. and Jamb Enterprises Ltd. The remaining twenty percent fell to the appellant, A.I. Enterprises Ltd., owned and directed by Alan Schelew. Joyce, Bram, Jamb and A.I. signed a syndication agreement whereby the majority of investors were granted the right of sale, subject to a right of first refusal by any minority investor to purchase the apartment at a professionally appraised price. The terms of the syndication agreement limited the irreversible offer of sale to a fifteen-day window.

In 2000, Bram and Jamb wished to sell the apartment, at that time valued at $2.2 million, but A.I. and Alan Schelew declined to purchase it. Bram and Jamb attempted to sell the property to multiple buyers but were unsuccessful. Two years later, A.I. purchased the apartment for $2.2 million.

Bram and Jamb then sued A.I. for causing loss by unlawful means. They alleged that, due to A.I. and Alan's conduct, the sale had been delayed and at a lesser price than they could have received from a third-party buyer. Bram and Jamb claimed that A.I. and Alan had broken the terms of the syndication agreement, that Alan had breached his fiduciary duty as a joint director of the respondent corporate entities, and that the A.I. and Alan had unlawfully interfered with their economic relations.

The courts below

At the Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick, the trial judge focused on four of the appellants' acts: [1]

  • they misused the arbitration provisions of the Syndication Agreement as a means of stalling the sale of the Joyce property;
  • they advanced legally groundless defences for a "Notice of its first right of refusal" which they had filed against the Joyce property;
  • they subsequently filed an equally baseless certificate of pending litigation against the property; and
  • they denied entry to the Joyce property to prospective buyers.

In the trial judge's view, all of this conduct was unlawful because it lacked any legal basis or justification. He found that Schelew's conduct in obstructing the sale also breached his fiduciary obligations as director of Bram and Jamb and that A.I. had breached its obligations towards Bram and Jamb under the Syndication Agreement. [2]

The trial judge's decision was affirmed on appeal. At trial, neither side had referred to the recent case of OBG Ltd v Allan that had been decided in the House of Lords. Its merits were argued at the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick, which opted to prefer the more narrow reasoning that was expressed by Lord Hoffmann in it for a narrow definition of "unlawful means" whereby only breaches of the civil law such as a tort or breach of contract would suffice. It did, however, allow for principled exceptions to mitigate the rigidity of the narrow rule and crafted an exception, which covered this case, in the following terms:

In my view, the intentional erection of self-help legal barriers, some of which are enforceable through statutory processes not subject to prior judicial authorization, in circumstances where those barriers rest on rights fabricated with arguments of sand, warrants redress under the tort of unlawful means (akin to the tort of abuse of legal process). [3]

At the Supreme Court

The appeal was dismissed, Cromwell J., writing for a unanimous Court, noted that the Court had previously addressed the issue only once before, [4] at that time favouring a narrow construction of the tort. [5] In the present case, it concluded that:

  1. Liability to the plaintiff is based on (or parasitic upon) the defendant's unlawful act against the third party. The two core components of the unlawful means tort are that the defendant must use unlawful means and that the defendant must intend to harm the plaintiff through the use of the unlawful means. [6]
  2. In order for conduct to constitute "unlawful means" for this tort, the conduct must give rise to a civil cause of action by the third party or would do so if the third party had suffered loss as a result of that conduct. [7] The unlawful means tort should be kept within narrow bounds, and it is not subject to principled exceptions. [8]
  3. The defendant must have the intention to cause economic harm to the plaintiff as an end in itself or the intention to cause economic harm to the plaintiff because it is a necessary means of achieving an end that serves some ulterior motive. [9]
  4. The focus of this tort is unlawful conduct that intentionally harms the plaintiff's economic interests. There need be no contract or even other formal dealings between the plaintiff and the third party so long as the defendant's conduct is unlawful and it intentionally harms the plaintiff's economic interests. [10]
  5. The tort of unlawful means is available even if there is another cause of action available to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to the alleged misconduct. [11]

Therefore, the tort of unlawful means was found not to be made out in this case, but Schelew was nevertheless found liable because he had breached his fiduciary obligations as a director of the family companies. [12]

Impact

The Court also noted that the Civil Code of Quebec [13] goes farther than the common law's unlawful means tort, where liability may be imposed on the defendant for conduct which is otherwise lawful but which is done with the intent to injure the plaintiff or in a manner inconsistent with the social ends of that right. [14] In such cases, the appellants' conduct may have been found to fall within the liability's scope in Quebec. [15]

Related Research Articles

At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages.

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

A tort, in common law jurisdiction, is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. It can include intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy, and many other things.

Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages award.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an "extreme and outrageous" way. Some courts and commentators have substituted mental for emotional, but the tort is the same.

The law of restitution is the law of gains-based recovery. It is to be contrasted with the law of compensation, which is the law of loss-based recovery. When a court orders restitution it orders the defendant to give up his/her gains to the claimant. When a court orders compensation it orders the defendant to pay the claimant for his or her loss.

Economic torts, which are also called business torts, are torts that provide the common law rules on liability which arise out of business transactions such as interference with economic or business relationships and are likely to involve pure economic loss.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract, or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.

<i>Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver</i>

Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver[1942] UKHL 1, is a leading case in UK company law regarding the rule against directors and officers from taking personal advantage of a corporate opportunity in violation of their duty of loyalty to the company. The Court held that a director is in breach of his duties if he takes advantage of an opportunity that the corporation would otherwise be interested in but was unable to take advantage. However the breach could have been resolved by ratification by the shareholders, which those involved neglected to do.

<i>Quinn v Leathem</i>

Quinn v Leathem [1901] UKHL 2, is a case on economic tort and is an important case historically for British labour law. It concerns the tort of "conspiracy to injure". The case was a significant departure from previous practices, and was reversed by the Trade Disputes Act 1906. However, the issue of secondary action was later restricted from the Employment Act 1980, and now the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The case was heavily controversial at the time, and generated a large amount of academic discussion, notably by Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, which continued long after it was overturned.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law:

<i>Attorney General v Blake</i>

Attorney General v Blake[2000] UKHL 45, [2001] 1 AC 268 is a leading English contract law case on damages for breach of contract. It established that in some circumstances, where ordinary remedies are inadequate, restitutionary damages may be awarded.

Economic torts in English law refer to a species of civil wrong which protects the economic wealth that a person will gain in the ordinary course of business. Proving compensation for pure economic loss, examples of an economic tort include interference with economic or business relationships.

<i>OBG Ltd v Allan</i>


OBG Ltd v Allan [2007] UKHL 21 was a combined appeal with Douglas v Hello! Ltd and Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and stands as the leading case on economic torts in English law.

Eggshell skull legal doctrine

The eggshell rule is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems, with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.

<i>Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers</i>

Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers2013 SCC 6, arising from the Ontario courts as Re Indalex Limited, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that deals with the question of priorities of claims in proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, and how they intersect with the fiduciary duties employers have as administrators of pension plans.

<i>Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd v Canada</i> significant case of the Supreme Court of Canada

Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd v Canada is a significant case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the application of Canadian income tax law, as well as the purposive interpretation of statutes.

<i>Peracomo Inc v TELUS Communications Co</i> order passed by the Canadian SC

Peracomo Inc v TELUS Communications Co2014 SCC 29 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the law of marine insurance, which also has international impact.

<i>Bank of Montreal v Marcotte</i> Ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada

Bank of Montreal v Marcotte2014 SCC 55 is a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. Together with Amex Bank of Canada v. Adams2014 SCC 56 and Marcotte v. Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec2014 SCC 57, it represents a further development in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence on the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and paramountcy, together with significant clarifications on the law concerning class actions in the Province of Quebec, which is similar to that in operation in the common law provinces.

<i>Berry v CCL Secure Ltd</i> legal case in the High Court of Australia

Benoy Berry & Global Secure Currency Limited v CCL Secure Pty Ltd is a decision of the High Court of Australia, concerning the assessment of damages for deliberately deceptive conduct under s82 of the Trade Practices Act.

References

  1. ↑ NBQB, par. 282, quoted at SCC, par. 13
  2. ↑ SCC, par. 14
  3. ↑ NBCA, par. 9
  4. ↑ International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Therien 1960 CanLII 33 , [1960] SCR 265(26 January 1960)
  5. ↑ SCC, par. 58–59
  6. ↑ SCC, par. 23–26
  7. ↑ SCC, par. 76
  8. ↑ SCC, par. 83–87
  9. ↑ SCC, par. 97
  10. ↑ SCC, par. 93
  11. ↑ SCC, par. 77–82
  12. ↑ SCC, par. 98–105
  13. ↑ Art. 6 CCQ ("[e]very person is bound to exercise his civil rights in good faith"), Art. 7 CCQ ("[n]o right may be exercised with the intent of injuring another")
  14. ↑ Pierre-Gabriel Jobin; Nathalie Vézina, eds. (2013). Les obligations (in French) (7th ed.). Éditions Yvon Blais. par. 156–158. ISBN   978-2-89635-629-4.
  15. ↑ SCC, par. 73
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.