Eric Mathieu Joseph Brousseau

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar to suspend his registration as a real estate salesperson.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the Notice of Proposal, suspending the appellant's registration for three months starting December 14, 2022.

The plaintiff, a co-founder of 1PLUS12, brought an action against numerous defendants, including the corporation's lawyers and investors, alleging a Ponzi scheme and claiming unpaid compensation.

Several groups of defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court struck the plaintiff's affidavit and the claims against the investors, finding the plaintiff lacked standing to advance claims on their behalf.

The court also struck certain scandalous and irrelevant paragraphs from the pleadings.

However, the court dismissed the motions to strike the entirety of the claims against the defendant lawyers and law firms, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims for negligence and misrepresentation would fail.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Steele J. The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether it is legally possible for some limited partners to bring a common law derivative action on behalf of a limited partnership against a general partner.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000, payable in the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The plaintiffs and the defendant Robert Langlois entered into a joint venture to operate a powder-coating business, ACS.

Mr. Langlois licensed his powder-coating know-how and expertise to ACS.

Before ACS generated any revenue, Mr. Langlois secretly formed a competing business, PCS, with the defendants Jeffrey Sugar and Gary Sugar.

Mr. Langlois diverted corporate opportunities, including a lucrative powder-coating contract, to PCS and later to VML.

The plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and knowing assistance.

The court found that Mr. Langlois breached the Licence Agreement and his fiduciary duties by misappropriating corporate opportunities.

The court also found that Jeffrey Sugar and Gary Sugar knowingly assisted in these breaches.

The court ordered disgorgement of profits and repayment of loans and expenses, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable.

The moving parties, six limited partners holding 54.5% of the shares in a family limited partnership, sought leave to commence a derivative action on behalf of the limited partnership and related corporate entities against the general partner, its sole director, and other parties.

The court held that while there is no statutory right for limited partners to bring a derivative action under the Limited Partnerships Act, the common law fraud exception to the rule in Foss v. Harbottle permits such an action where the general partner is the alleged wrongdoer.

Leave was granted to bring the derivative action on behalf of the limited partnership against the general partner and its director, but denied against third parties and on behalf of the underlying corporate entities.

This appeal concerned the appropriate measure of damages for a vendor's breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for real property.

The appellant purchaser sought to recover the significant capital appreciation realized by the breaching vendor two and a half years after the breach, when the vendor resold the properties for $56 million more than the original contract price.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, affirming the general principle that damages for breach of a real estate contract are assessed at the date of breach, unless the innocent party can demonstrate a later date is fair due to an inability to re-enter the market and mitigate.

The court found the appellant, a long-term investor, was not a speculator and failed to prove its loss or justify a departure from the date of breach.

The appeal on damages and costs was dismissed, as was the cross-appeal on costs thrown away.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff claimed a 50% equitable interest in a real estate property based on an oral joint venture agreement, while the defendants argued the relationship was strictly that of borrower and lender secured by promissory notes and a mortgage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence regarding the nature of the parties' relationship raised significant credibility issues that constituted a genuine issue requiring a full trial.

The appellant brought a motion seeking particulars, further disclosure, and costs.

Prior to the motion hearing, the respondent provided the requested disclosure, leaving only the issue of costs to be decided.

The appellant sought costs of $2,000 under Rule 19 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, arguing the respondent's delay in providing disclosure was unreasonable.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for costs, finding that the delay was reasonably explained by pandemic-related remote work challenges, did not prejudice the appellant's ability to have a fair hearing, and did not amount to vexatious or bad faith conduct.

The plaintiff sought costs after successfully resisting the defendants' motions to strike and for summary judgment.

The court awarded the plaintiff $7,500 in costs for the motion to strike.

However, the court denied the plaintiff costs for the summary judgment motion because the plaintiff's principal sent an improper email threatening the defendants with criminal charges to extort a settlement.

The applicants sought to enforce two letters rogatory issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to compel documentary and oral evidence from the respondent, a non-party in the underlying U.S. patent infringement litigation.

The respondent opposed, arguing the requests were overly broad, moot due to discovery deadlines, and contrary to public policy as they sought proprietary source codes.

The court granted the applications, enforcing the letters rogatory but narrowing their scope and imposing protective conditions, including compliance with a supplemental protective order and the deemed undertaking rule.

The applicant tenant brought an application for the return of moneys held by the respondent landlord following the end of a commercial lease.

The landlord claimed the tenant owed occupancy costs, utilities, and damages for move-out deficiencies.

The court found the landlord's accounting unreliable, as it was uncertified, inconsistent, and relied on hearsay evidence.

The court ordered the landlord to return $49,906.00 to the tenant, representing the funds held less conceded unpaid rent.

Claims by both parties for additional damages were dismissed due to insufficient evidence and the lack of a cross-application by the landlord.

The plaintiff purchased a commercial property from the defendants.

After closing, the plaintiff discovered that the version of a commercial lease provided by the defendants prior to closing was allegedly incorrect, and that the true lease obligated the landlord, rather than the tenant, to repair the roof.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for misrepresentation and breach of contract, arguing the plaintiff had already negotiated a price abatement for the roof and did not rely on the lease.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding whether the plaintiff lost the opportunity to seek contribution from the tenant based on the incorrect lease provided.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Kimmel J. dated March 20, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,891.66.

The individual defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiff's claim against them for fraudulent misrepresentation.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, as officers/directors of the vendor corporation, knowingly provided a false lease and statutory declarations regarding the property's condition and tenant obligations during a property sale.

The defendants argued the claim was an attempt to convert a breach of contract into a personal tort.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the claim for fraudulent misrepresentation was sufficiently pleaded, as allegations of fraud, deceit, and dishonesty against corporate officers/directors can proceed, taking their actions outside their corporate role.

The plaintiff purchaser brought a motion for judgment against the defendant vendors for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for seven apartment buildings.

The defendants failed to discharge mortgages on title prior to closing, breaching the agreement.

The plaintiff sought damages for sunk costs and over $56 million for lost capital appreciation, based on the defendants' subsequent sale of the properties 2.5 years later.

The court awarded the sunk costs but dismissed the claim for lost profits, holding that damages must be assessed at the closing date and that the plaintiff, an international real estate investor, had mitigated its losses by deploying its funds elsewhere.

The moving party brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a garnishment order issued over two years prior.

The moving party argued that its delay was due to its sole shareholder's ignorance of the law and the belief that the company was judgment proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party made a tactical decision not to appeal and that the delay caused prejudice to the victims of the underlying fraud.

The court also noted that the proposed appeal was not obviously meritorious.

Following the dismissal of the appeal, the court received written submissions on costs.

The court awarded costs of the appeal to the respondent in the amount of $17,500, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellant landlord wrongfully terminated a commercial lease held by the respondent, who was the sole shareholder of a corporation operating a restaurant on the premises.

The termination caused the restaurant to close and the respondent's shares to become worthless.

The landlord appealed the summary judgment awarding the respondent damages for the diminution in share value, arguing the claim was barred by the rule in Foss v. Harbottle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the rule does not apply where the wrong was committed against the shareholder personally and the corporation has no cause of action.

This endorsement addresses the costs of an appeal where the defendant's appeal from a master's decision, granting the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim, was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, as successful parties on appeal, sought partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs of $8,975.75, payable within 30 days, finding that the defendant's re-litigation of issues on appeal justified the award, despite the underlying motion being for an amendment.

The defendant appealed a master's order granting the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim to include a breach of an earlier manufacturing agreement, after the expiry of the limitation period.

The central issue was whether the proposed amendment constituted a new cause of action.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the master's decision that the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action, as it arose from the same factual matrix and alleged breaches, and the defendant had notice of the underlying facts.

The court affirmed that the "clean hands" doctrine is not applicable to limitation period analyses and that the tenability of amendments is assessed by assuming pleaded facts are true, deferring substantive merits to trial or summary judgment.