The appellant mortgage broker appealed the trial judge's dismissal of its action against the respondents for unpaid commissions.
The appellant argued the respondents should be liable for breach of contract, oppression, or as principals by piercing the corporate veil.
The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's refusal to award them costs.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's refusal to pierce the corporate veil or find oppression in what was an ordinary breach of contract by the corporate defendant.
The cross-appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge's decision to deprive the successful respondents of costs due to their borderline dishonest conduct was justified.
