2 total
The court affirmed striking a conspiracy claim against corporate directors for deficient pleadings.
The appellants, purchasers of pre-construction homes, appealed a motion judge's order striking their claims against three directors of Vandyk, a company that acquired the failed development.
The appellants argued for a viable claim based on unlawful act conspiracy and that the motion judge erred in denying leave to amend.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's analysis, affirming that the claims did not allege conduct by the directors outside their corporate roles and that it was plain and obvious no tenable cause of action was pleaded.
The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the appearing respondents.
Multiple claims by pre-construction home purchasers against developer's lender and subsequent purchaser struck for deficient pleadings.
The plaintiffs, purchasers of pre-construction homes, sued the developer, its directors, its lender, and the subsequent purchaser of the development after their agreements of purchase and sale were terminated and their deposits retained.
Several groups of defendants brought motions to strike the statements of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) and Rule 25.11.
The court found the pleadings to be deficient, confusing, and lacking material facts.
Many claims, including conspiracy, interference with economic relations, and inducing breach of contract, were struck with leave to amend.
Claims for unjust enrichment and claims against the individual directors of the subsequent purchaser were struck without leave to amend.
Claims against the former directors of the developer under the Assignments and Preferences Act and for oppression were allowed to proceed.
