The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision striking their claims for conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of trust, and refusing leave to amend.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the pleadings lacked the required particularity and were deficient.
However, the Court found the motion judge erred in refusing leave to amend, as the pleading did not contain a radical defect incapable of being cured.
The appeal was allowed in part to grant leave to amend those specific claims, while a motion to introduce fresh evidence was dismissed.
