Rebecca Shoom

The appellant, Richard Smith, appealed an arbitral award that set aside a paragraph of Minutes of Settlement due to his failure to make full disclosure of significant stock option income.

The Arbitrator found that Mr. Smith's disclosure created "information asymmetry" by not clearly presenting the $1.1 million stock option income in his financial statements and affidavits, despite it appearing on attached pay stubs.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Arbitrator's finding that Mr. Smith did not fulfill his positive duty of full and honest disclosure, as required by Rick v. Brandsema.

The court rejected the appellant's arguments that the Arbitrator made palpable and overriding errors of fact or erred in law by relieving the respondent of her duty to inquire, emphasizing that the onus to inquire only shifts after complete and unambiguous disclosure.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action brought a pre-certification pleadings motion to replace a representative plaintiff and add Scarsview Motors Ltd. as a defendant, intending to certify a defendant class of FCA dealers.

Scarsview resisted its addition, arguing prejudice and unsuitability as a representative.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding the causes of action against Scarsview properly pleaded and its addition necessary to preserve potential remedies related to implied warranties.

The court deferred Scarsview's affidavit evidence regarding prejudice and unsuitability to the certification stage, emphasizing that such issues are best addressed on a proper record at certification, not on a pleadings motion.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs, a grapevine grower and a nursery, sought a declaration that their insurer owed them a duty to defend an underlying action in British Columbia regarding allegedly defective vines.

The insurer denied coverage based on the 'Your Product', 'care, custody or control', and 'fungus' exclusions in the Commercial General Liability policy.

The court held that the pleadings in the underlying action clearly triggered the exclusions, relieving the insurer of any duty to defend.

The court also addressed the plaintiffs' request to appoint independent counsel, noting that while no duty to defend existed, specific protective measures would have been ordered to prevent conflicts of interest had the duty been found.