William Moore

The plaintiffs purchased a plaster sculpture attributed to Auguste Rodin and loaned it to the defendant art gallery to obtain a charitable tax credit.

The authenticity of the sculpture was subsequently challenged by the Musée Rodin, causing the tax certification to fail.

The defendant terminated the loan agreement and requested the plaintiffs arrange for the sculpture's return.

When the plaintiffs failed to do so, the defendant shipped the sculpture to a storage facility, during which it sustained severe damage.

The plaintiffs sued for damages, and the defendant counterclaimed for storage fees.

The court found that the loan agreement had terminated and the defendant was acting as an involuntary bailee.

As an involuntary bailee, the defendant's duty was only to refrain from intentional or reckless damage.

The court held the defendant met this standard by using the original packing crate, especially given the sculpture's lack of proven authenticity and value.

The plaintiffs' claim was dismissed, and the defendant's counterclaim for storage fees was granted.

The appellants loaned a valuable sculpture to the respondent art centre.

Years later, the sculpture was discovered to be severely damaged.

The appellants sued for negligence, breach of contract, and bailment.

The respondent successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and also obtained judgment on a counterclaim for storage costs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error in his factual findings regarding when the appellants first learned of the damage.

The Court set aside the summary judgment and the counterclaim judgment, allowing the action to proceed to trial.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant art gallery for damages to a plaster sculpture allegedly attributed to Auguste Rodin, which was loaned to the gallery for a failed 'art flip' tax scheme.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action as statute-barred and for judgment on its counterclaim for unpaid storage fees.

The court found that the plaintiffs' agents knew of the damage more than two years before the action was commenced, and this knowledge was imputed to the plaintiffs.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' action as statute-barred and awarding the defendant $8,522.55 on its counterclaim for storage costs.