2 total
Pleadings improperly struck in part; several personal and unjust enrichment claims revived.
The appellant challenged an order striking pleaded claims against an individual corporate principal and dismissing an unjust enrichment claim on a pleadings motion.
The Court of Appeal held that it was not plain and obvious that the statutory claims under s. 131 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the claim under s. 10 of the Partnerships Act, and the pleaded breach of contract and misrepresentation claims against the individual respondent could not succeed.
Applying the unjust enrichment benefit analysis from Peel, the court held the claim was properly struck against the individual respondent personally for lack of material facts showing a tangible benefit, but could proceed against the remaining respondents based on unpaid services and business expenses.
The appeal was allowed in part and costs were awarded to the appellant.
Claims against corporate officer and unjust enrichment struck for insufficient pleadings.
The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of a fresh as amended statement of claim in an employment-related action seeking damages for breach of contract, wrongful dismissal, misrepresentation, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment.
The court held that the pleading failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against an individual corporate officer because it did not plead material facts showing independent misconduct separate from the corporation.
The court struck the claims against the individual defendant and dismissed the action as against him.
However, the court found sufficient pleaded facts to support the allegation that two corporate defendants could be treated as common employers.
The claim for unjust enrichment was also struck for failure to plead a tangible benefit retained by the defendants.
