The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claims for negligent misrepresentation and oppression arising from a share purchase agreement dispute.
The defendants argued the negligent misrepresentation claim failed to establish a duty of care and relied on future promises, and that the oppression claim was duplicative of a breach of contract claim.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that a duty of care was sufficiently pleaded and that the oppression claim was not barred merely because a contract existed between the parties.
The plaintiff was awarded costs of $40,000.
