Barry Leon

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim alleging breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, inducing breach of contract, intentional interference with economic relations, and claims for aggravated and punitive damages arising from a failed joint venture concerning a key‑cutting machine.

Applying the “plain and obvious” test from Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., the court held that the pleadings sufficiently disclosed causes of action for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and inducement of breach of contract.

However, the claims for intentional interference with economic relations and interference with prospective economic relations were struck as they lacked the necessary allegations that a third party had an actionable claim against the defendant.

Claims for aggravated and punitive damages were also struck for lack of particularization but with leave to amend.

Certain evidentiary paragraphs were struck for breaching pleading rules.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal regarding the right of limited partners to vote on the election of a new general partner, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The Court of Appeal fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis, awarding $17,000 to Chalmers, $8,000 to the liquidator, and $5,000 to the respondent, plus disbursements and GST, all payable by the appellant.

The appellant appealed an order allowing two limited partners to vote on the election of a new general partner for a limited partnership.

The appellant argued the limited partners were affiliated with and not dealing at arms length with the manager, and thus disqualified from voting under the partnership agreements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that there was no direct or indirect control establishing affiliation, and that the parties were dealing at arms length.

The Crown appealed a motions judge's decision refusing leave to amend its statement of defence and counterclaim in a breach of contract action regarding a software development project.

The Crown sought to add claims for negligent misrepresentation, professional negligence, and conspiracy against the plaintiff, and to add two related foreign corporate entities as defendants by counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge erred in concluding the tort claims were barred by the contract's entire agreement clause and in applying a 'presumptive refusal' rather than 'presumptive approval' test for amending pleadings.