COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-438
DATE: 2014-10-07
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Allan Curle, Bruce Johnson, Jeanette Johnson, Norall Group Inc. and Norall Group Contracting Inc.
Mr. Hacio, for the Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
- and -
Gina Gustafson, Juanita Curle, Holly LeBrun, Carl Gustafson, and D.J. Gustafson Engineering Ltd. c.o.b. as Aegus Contracting
Mr. Holervich for the Defendants Gina Gustafson and Juanita Curle
Mr. Matson for the Defendants Holly Lebrun, Carl Gustafson and D.J. Gustafson Engineering Ltd.
Defendants
HEARD: August 11 and 12, 2014 at Thunder Bay
Mr. Justice J.S. Fregeau
Reasons on Motion
The Nature of the Motion
[1] The defendants, Gina Gustafson and Juanita Curle, have brought a motion seeking the following relief:
A declaration that there is a conflict between the interests of the plaintiffs Allan Curle, Bruce Johnson and Jeanette Johnson and the interests of the plaintiffs Norall Group Inc. (“NGI”) and Norall Group Contracting Inc. (“NGCI”) and that Hacio Law, counsel for all plaintiffs, is in a conflict of interest;
An order removing Hacio Law as counsel of record for all plaintiffs;
A stay of this action on the basis that Hacio Law did not obtain proper authority from NGI and NGCI to commence the action;
A declaration that Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson:
a) Have acted with a lack of good faith in relation to the corporations;
b) Are not fit to bring any action on behalf of the corporations;
c) Be prohibited from bringing any action on behalf of the corporations.
- An order that Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson pay the costs of the motion on a substantial indemnity basis failing which Hacio Law pay the costs of the motion.
[2] The remaining defendants support the motion of the defendants Gina Gustafson and Juanita Curle.
Background
[3] The corporate dispute which is the subject matter of this litigation involves three couples; Allan and Juanita Curle, Bruce and Jeanette Johnson and Carl and Gina Gustafson. The three couples have divided into two factions, with Juanita Curle and the Gustafsons on one side and Allan Curle and the Johnsons on the other side.
[4] NGI was incorporated on December 20, 1996. The original shareholders of NGI in 1996 were as follows:
Name Number of Shares Description
Allan Curle 25, 000 Class “A” common
Sam Stone 10, 000 Class “A” common
Franco Crupi 7,000 Class “A” common
Carl Gustafson 10,000 Class “A” common
[5] Bruce Johnson became the owner of 8,000 Class A common shares on July 1, 1997. Mr. Stone and Mr. Crupi disposed of all of their shares in 2001.
[6] In or about 2006, Carl Gustafson, Bruce Johnson and Allan Curle gifted their respective common shares in NGI to their spouses. Each of the gifts was supported by a Deed and Declaration of Gift, an Acceptance and Receipt of Gift and a Directors’ Resolution approving the respective transfers of shares. The result of the gifts and transfers is that the shareholders of NGI since 2006 have been the following persons:
Name Number of Shares Description
Juanita Curle 25,000 Class “A” common
Gina Gustafson 17,000 Class “A” common
Jeanette Johnson 8,000 Class “A” common
[7] NGCI was incorporated on August 23, 2002. Gina Gustafson, Juanita Curle and Jeanette Johnson were the original shareholders of NGCI. The shareholdings in NGCI have not changed since 2002 and are as follows:
Name
Juanita Curle 49 Class “A” common 49 Class “B” common
Gina Gustafson 35 Class “A” common 35 Class “B” common
Jeanette Johnson 16 Class “A” common 16 Class “B” common
[8] Since 2006 and at present the only shareholders of NGI and NGCI have been Gina Gustafson, Juanita Curle and Jeanette Johnson. Their respective shareholdings in the corporations are as follows:
Name NGI NGCI
Juantia Curle 50% 49%
Gina Gustafson 34% 35%
Jeanette Johnson 16% 16%
[9] One of the issues in this action is who the directors of the corporations are. Prior to May 2012, the directors of both corporations were Allan Curle, Carl Gustafson and Bruce Johnson. At shareholders’ meetings held on May 4, 2012, Allan Curle, Carl Gustafson and Bruce Johnson were removed as directors of both corporations and replaced by Gina Gustafson, Juanita Curle and Holly LeBrun. Ms. Lebrun has since resigned. At present the registered directors of both corporations are Gina Gustafson and Juanita Curle.
[10] Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson allege that they were given improper notice of the May 4, 2012 meetings such that their removal as directors and Gina Gustafson’s and Juanita Curle’s appointments as directors were invalid.
[11] At the shareholders’ meetings on May 4, 2012, Gina Gustafson and Juanita Curle, being the majority of the shareholders, voted to apply to the court to wind up and dissolve both companies. They have alleged that both corporations were “dysfunctional” with no new work being pursued. On June 8, 2012, Gina Gustafson and Juanita Curle, as applicants, had issued a Notice of Application in which Bruce Johnson, Allan Curle, Norall Group Inc., and Norall Group Contracting Inc. were named as respondents.
[12] In the winding up application, Gina Gustafson and Juanita Curle have asked for, among other things, the following:
A declaration that Gina Gustafson and Juanita Curle are shareholders and directors of NGI and NGCI;
An order restraining Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson from acting as a director of either of NCI or NCGI; and,
An order directing that each of the Corporations be wound up.
[13] Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson allege that the day-to-day operations and management on NCI and NGCI have been controlled exclusively by Juanita Curle and Gina Gustafson since May 2012. They further allege that they have been physically locked out of the offices of the corporations since May 16, 2012 and that Gina Gustafson and Juanita Curle have had exclusive possession and control of all books and records of both companies since that date. These allegations have not been denied on this motion.
[14] Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson retained Hacio Law to represent them in regard to the winding up application. In October 2012, Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson formally responded to the winding up application. On October 24, 2012, the Statement of Claim in this action was issued, naming Allan Curle, Bruce Johnson, Jeanette Johnson, NCI and NCGI as plaintiffs. Neither Gina Gustafson nor Juanita Curle authorized or approved NCI or NCGI being named as plaintiffs in this action.
[15] In this action, Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson are, among other things, challenging the validity of their removal as directors of both companies. They have put in issue Gina Gustafson’s and Juanita Curle’s positions as both shareholders and directors of NCI and NCGI. Gina Gustafson and Juanita Curle assert that the removal and the replacement of the directors in 2012 were valid acts taken by a majority of the shareholders of NCI and NCGI, as together they own 84% of the shares of each of the companies.
[16] On November 12, 2012, Gina Gustafson and Juanita Curle delivered a Rule 15.02 Request to Hacio Law on behalf of both NGI and NGCI, requesting confirmation of authority to commence this action naming the companies as plaintiffs. Mr. Hacio responded that “we were directed by the majority of the Directors of NGI and NGCI to commence proceeding CV-12-0438.” On August 28, 2013, counsel for Gina Gustafson and Juanita Curle once again requested that Mr. Hacio provide, for each of the plaintiff corporations, a copy of any resolution of the Board of Directors confirming his authority to commence this action. There is no evidence before me on this motion that Mr. Hacio responded to this request.
The Positions of the Parties
i. The Conflict of Interest Issue
The Moving Parties
[17] The moving parties submit that in a shareholders’ dispute between two factions, there will always be a conflict between the interests of either faction and those of the corporation(s). The moving parties submit that the conflict in this case was expressly acknowledged by Mr. Hacio in June 2012 when Hacio Law was in the process of being retained by the individual plaintiffs on the winding up application.
[18] Counsel for the moving party submits that after being retained by Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson, Mr. Hacio once again expressly acknowledged the conflict of interest between the individual parties and the corporations. Counsel directed the court to a letter dated July 26, 2012 from Mr. Hacio to Mr. Holervich in which Mr. Hacio states that Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson would be asking that separate legal representation be appointed to represent NGI and NGCI.
[19] The moving parties submit that, notwithstanding having acknowledged the conflict between the interests of Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson on the one hand and of the corporations on the other, Hacio Law commenced this action in October 2012 as solicitor of record for the individual plaintiffs and for NGI and NGCI.
[20] The moving parties submit that it is no answer to the conflict issue for Mr. Hacio to now say that he will withdraw as counsel for NCI and NCGI but that he should be allowed to remain as counsel for the individual plaintiffs. The moving parties submit that Mr. Hacio should not be permitted to remain as counsel for the individual plaintiffs and should be ordered removed as counsel entirely.
[21] It is submitted that the solicitor client relationship presumes the communication of confidential information between lawyers and clients. It is submitted that it is possible that the individual plaintiffs have provided confidential information about one or both of the corporations to Mr. Hacio. The possibility of this having occurred is suggested to be sufficient to create the appearance of a conflict of interest such that Mr. Hacio should be precluded from continuing to act for the individual plaintiffs in this litigation.
The Responding Parties
[22] Mr. Hacio has brought a further motion, first returnable on the day this motion was heard, requesting the appointment of independent counsel to represent NGI and NGCI. At the hearing of this motion, I stayed Mr. Hacio’s motion asking for the appointment of independent counsel and ordered that it be heard, if necessary, after the release of the decision on this primary motion. I also ordered that the April 5, 2013 interim interim order of Pierce J., which essentially froze the operations of NGI and NGCI, be extended to the first motions date following the release of my decision on the defendant’s motion to remove Hacio Law as counsel for all plaintiffs.
[23] Mr. Hacio agrees that Hacio Law should be removed as counsel for NGI and NGCI. He submits that independent counsel should be appointed for the corporations with the issue for the court being whether or not Hacio Law should be removed as counsel for the individual plaintiffs.
[24] Mr. Hacio submits that, given the circumstances in this case, there is no actual or potential conflict of interest that would require he be removed as counsel for the individual plaintiffs once the corporate plaintiffs have independent counsel.
[25] It is submitted that Hacio Law has acted for all plaintiffs, to the knowledge of the defendants, since the fall of 2012. The Statement of Claim was served in late 2012 and the Statement of Defence served in August 2013. This motion was first returnable in December 2013. Over the course of the litigation to date, there have been three motions brought by the defendants and defended by Hacio Law on behalf of all plaintiffs. The defendants have not, until the motion before this court, raised the conflict issue.
[26] It is submitted that the individual plaintiffs have expended considerable time and money to date and that they should not be deprived of their choice of counsel and required to retain new counsel unless there is an actual conflict of interest clearly established by the defendants.
[27] Mr. Hacio submits that there is no actual or potential conflict in allowing him to continue to represent the individual plaintiffs once NGI and NGCI have independent counsel. It is submitted that Hacio Law had no relationship whatsoever with either the individual or corporate plaintiffs prior to May 2012. From this point forward, it is submitted that Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson have been physically locked out of the corporate offices and denied access to any records, books or any other information about the companies.
[28] Mr. Hacio submits that the onus is on the party alleging the conflict to establish the basis of an actual or perceived conflict of interest. Mr. Hacio submits that the defendants have not done so because, given these circumstances, there is no actual or potential conflict in allowing him to continue to represent the interests of the individual plaintiffs.
ii. The Corporate Authority Issue
The Moving Parties
[29] Gina Gustafson and Juanita Curle submit that neither they, nor Holly Lebrun when she was a director, authorized either corporation, or any lawyer acting on their behalf to commence this proceeding. The moving parties submit that they were validly elected as directors of both corporations on May 4, 2012 at properly constituted shareholders meetings. They further submit that they have acted as, and been recognized as directors of the corporations since that time by CRA, the corporations’ long standing corporate counsel and the corporations’ accountants.
[30] Gina Gustafson and Juanita Curle question how Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson can, in this action, be asking the court to remove them as directors while at the same time suggesting that they, Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson, as directors, authorized Hacio Law to commence this action naming the corporations as plaintiffs.
The Responding Parties
[31] The responding parties submit that up to May 2012, Allan Curle, Carl Gustafson and Bruce Johnson, in their capacity as directors, made all decisions respecting both corporations and exercised all aspects of management and control of both corporations. It is submitted that prior to that time, Juanita Curle and Gina Gustafson had no involvement whatsoever in the decision making or management of NGI or NGCI.
[32] The responding parties submit that Juanita Curle and Gina Gustafson did not have authority to call the May 4, 2012 shareholders meeting. It is submitted that all shares they held in both companies were held in trust for their respective families such that they could not properly exercise the voting rights attached to their shares.
[33] The responding parties further submit that, in any event, the May 4, 2012 meetings called by Juanita Curle and Gina Gustafson were illegal for a number of reasons, including the fact that improper notice of the meetings was given to the directors who were removed from office on that date.
[34] In the result, Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson submit that they remain as legitimate and lawful directors of both corporations. As such, they submit that they had the authority to and did in fact authorize the commencement of this proceeding naming NGI and NGCI as plaintiffs.
The “Lack of Good Faith” Issue
[35] In regard to this issue, the moving parties are asking this court for an order declaring that Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson have acted with a lack of good faith in relation to the corporations, that each of them is “not fit” to bring any action on behalf of the corporations and that they be prohibited from doing so by court order.
[36] The moving parties did not cite any Rule, statutory or common law authority for this relief in their motion materials or in oral argument. Mr. Hacio, on behalf of the responding parties, quite candidly acknowledged that he had no idea what exactly the moving parties were asking for, why it was being asked for or on what authority the request was being made.
[37] I find that this relief sought by the moving parties is without foundation or authority. This portion of the motion is dismissed.
Discussion
The Conflict of Interest Issue
[38] Section 2.04(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Law Society of Upper Canada define a “conflict of interest” or a “conflicting interest” as an interest,
a) that would be likely to affect adversely a lawyer’s judgement on behalf of, or loyalty to, a client or prospective client, or
b) that a lawyer might be prompted to prefer to the interests of a client or prospective client.
[39] Section 2.04 of the Rules of Professional Conduct also states the following:
(2) A lawyer shall not advise or represent more than one side of a dispute.
(3) A lawyer shall not act or continue to act in a manner when there is or is likely to be a conflicting interest unless, after disclosure adequate to make an informed decision, the client or prospective client consents.
(6) Where a lawyer accepts employment from more than one client in a matter, the lawyer shall advise the clients that;
a) the lawyer has been asked to act for both or all of them;
b) no information received in connection with the matter from one can be treated as confidential so far as any of the others are concerned; and,
c) if a conflict develops that cannot be resolved, the lawyer cannot continue to act for both or all of them and may have to withdraw completely.
[40] In Hames v. Greenburg, 2013 ONSC 4410, [2013] O.J. No. 3398 (Ont. S.C.), Brown J. stated that a “fair conflicts rule must balance the conflicting values of preserving the high repute of the legal profession and the administration of justice against the values of allowing the client’s choice of counsel…”. (para. 6) Brown J. went on to discuss the case of Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39 which addressed conflict of interest in the context of a lawyer’s misuse of confidential information obtained from a client. The lawyer’s main duty is to refrain from misusing confidential information:
The first major concern addressed by the duty to avoid conflicting interests is the misuse of confidential information. The duty to avoid conflicts reinforces the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality – which is a distinct duty – by preventing situations that carry a heightened risk of a breach of confidentiality. A lawyer cannot act in a matter where he may use confidential information obtained from a former or current client to the detriment of that client. A two-part test is applied to determine whether the new matter will place the lawyer in a conflict of interest: (1) Did the lawyer receive confidential information attributable to a solicitor and client relationship relevant to the matter at hand? (2) Is there a risk that it will be used to the prejudice of that client? (CNR p. 1260)
[41] The Ontario Court of Appeal, in Best v. Cox 2013 ONCA 695, stated that the Court of Appeal had recently reiterated the principle that a court will only in the rarest of cases grant a removal motion. Justice Feldman adopted the following statement of the law by Justice Cronk in Kaiser (Re), at para. 21:
As the motion judge properly noted, “A litigant should not be deprived of counsel of its choice without good cause…” For this reason, Canadian courts exercise the highest level of restraint before interfering with a party’s choice of counsel. Where such discretionary, equitable relief is invoked, there must be a possibility of real mischief should a removal order be refused. The test is whether a fair-minded and reasonably informed member of the public would conclude that counsel’s removal is necessary for the proper administration of justice…
[42] In the CNR case, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that courts, in the exercise of their supervisory jurisdiction over the administration of justice, have inherent jurisdiction to remove law firms from pending litigation. Disqualification may be required:
to avoid the risk of improper use of confidential information;
to avoid the risk of impaired representation; and/or,
to maintain the repute of the administration of justice.
[43] Disqualification was suggested to be the “only appropriate remedy” for situations 1 and 2. In assessing whether disqualification is required on the third ground, the Supreme Court stated that all relevant circumstances should be considered. Where the maintenance of the repute of the administration of justice is the only basis for disqualification and in circumstances where the lawyer-client relationship has been terminated and there is no risk of misuse of confidential information, the court directed that the following factors should be considered: (CNR paras. 61 to 65)
behaviour disentitling the complaining party from seeking the removal of counsel, such as delay in bringing the motion for disqualification; and,
significant prejudice to the new client’s interest in retaining its counsel of choice, and that party’s ability to retain new counsel.
[44] In the case before me, the moving parties are requesting that Hacio Law be removed as counsel of record for the individual plaintiffs on the basis of the potential misuse of confidential information and to maintain the repute of the administration of justice.
[45] Hacio Law has conceded that it cannot and should not continue to act for NGI and NGCI. This is not a significant concession by any means. It should have been obvious to Mr. Hacio at the outset, and in fact it apparently was, that he was unable to act for both the individual plaintiffs and the corporate plaintiffs given the facts and circumstances of this case.
[46] Hacio Law is ordered removed as counsel of record for NGI and NGCI. Mr. Hacio’s motion, on behalf of the individual plaintiffs, for the appointment of independent counsel for these plaintiffs, will be heard in due course.
[47] Mr. Hacio has, in my opinion, correctly framed the remaining issue. Should Hacio Law be allowed to continue to represent the interests of the individual plaintiffs once it no longer represents NGI and NGCI. In my opinion, on the facts of this case, the balance weighs in favour of allowing the individual plaintiffs their choice of counsel and not removing Hacio Law as their counsel.
[48] Neither Mr. Hacio or Hacio Law had any relationship with either the individual plaintiffs or NGI or NGCI prior to the May 2012 events. He was retained by the individual plaintiffs subsequent to and as a result of those events.
[49] While Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson were intimately involved in the day to day operations and management of the companies’ affairs up to May of 2012, they have been physically locked out of the companies’ offices since that time. They have had no access whatsoever to the company books, records or any other form of confidential corporate information. The individual plaintiffs assert that they do not possess any such confidential corporate information. There is no evidence before me to the contrary. Had there been any substantive evidence of this nature, I suspect that this motion would have been brought long before now.
[50] I am not persuaded that there is a significant risk of the use of confidential information by Hacio Law to the actual or potential detriment of either the corporate plaintiffs or the defendants. Nor do I see the need in these circumstances to remove Hacio Law as counsel for the individual plaintiffs in order to maintain the repute of the administration of justice.
[51] This motion was not brought by the moving parties until December 2013, more than one year after the Statement of Claim was issued. Before this motion was advanced, the defendants brought three other motions which were defended by Hacio Law on behalf of all plaintiffs without the conflict issue being raised. Significant funds have been spent to date on this litigation. Significantly more money would necessarily be spent, and costs duplicated, if the individual plaintiffs were required to retain new counsel.
[52] Hacio Law no longer acts for the corporate plaintiffs. I see no risk of confidential corporate information being used by Hacio Law to the detriment of any other parties. I am not satisfied that this firm also needs to be removed as counsel for the individual plaintiffs in order to prevent the possible use of confidential information or to maintain the integrity of the administration of justice. This request of the moving parties is dismissed.
The Corporate Authority Issue
[53] The law is well established that a lawyer who commences or defends an action on behalf of a corporation must be duly authorized to do so. Where a challenge to the authority of a lawyer to act for a corporation is brought by a party or parties who are related to the corporation, the court will generally scrutinize the authorization issue more carefully. The general principle is that if a corporation is to engage in litigation, either as a plaintiff or defendant, its actions must be duly authorized by the governing body of the corporation, ordinarily the directors or ultimately the shareholders. Bomanak Delicatessen Ltd. V. Minikakis (1974), 7 W.W.R. 334 (Man. Q.B.)
[54] Rule 15.02(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:
A person who is served with an originating process may deliver a request that the lawyer who is named in the originating process as the lawyer for the plaintiff or applicant deliver a notice declaring whether he has commenced or authorized the commencement of the proceeding or whether his client authorized the commencement of the proceeding.
[55] Rule 15.02(2) states that:
If the lawyer fails to deliver a notice in accordance with the request, the court may,
a) order the lawyer to do so;
b) stay the proceedings; and
c) order the lawyer to pay the costs of the proceedings.
[56] Section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act (R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43) states that a court, on its own initiative or on motion by any person, whether or not a party, may stay any proceedings in the court on such terms as are considered just.
[57] In Caribbean Cultural Committee v. Toronto (City), [2002] O.J. No. 2022 (S.C.J.), Molloy J. held that the plain meaning of Rule 15.02(1) is that an opposing party is entitled to require disclosure of whether the client authorized the solicitor to commence the proceeding. Molloy J. further held that case law under the current version of the Rule makes it clear that the defendant is entitled under the Rule to require disclosure of whether a corporate plaintiff was properly authorized to instruct counsel to commence the proceedings. See para. 8.
[58] This action, in which both NGI and NGCI were named as plaintiffs, was commenced on October 24, 2012. In October 2012, the defendants Juanita Curle and Gina Gustafson were the only two directors of each of the plaintiff companies. These defendants also owned 84% of the shares in each of the companies.
[59] As contemplated by Rule 15.02(1), these defendants questioned whether the corporate plaintiffs had properly authorized the commencement of this action. In response to this question, Mr. Hacio, counsel for all plaintiffs at that time, simply indicated by correspondence that he had been “directed by a majority of the Directors of the Norall Group Inc. and Norall Group Contracting Inc. to commence…” this action.
[60] There are numerous facts in dispute in regard to the validity of the May 4, 2012 shareholders’ meetings of NGI and NGCI during which Allan Curle, Bruce Johnson and Carl Gustafson were removed as directors and Juanita Curle, Gina Gustafson and Holly Lebrun were elected as directors. The determination of those factual issues is being sought both in this action and in the associated winding up application. It is not the role of this court on this motion to weight the evidence and determine those factual issues in order to determine if this action was properly authorized by the corporate plaintiffs.
[61] At the time the action was commenced, Gina Gustafson and Juanita Curle were the directors and majority shareholders of both NGI and NGCI. Their evidence is that they did not authorize the commencement of this action. I recognize that their position as both directors and shareholders has been challenged by the former directors. However, for the purpose of this motion, that issue remains unresolved. Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson, as past directors, did not have the authority to instruct counsel to start this action naming NGI and NGCI as plaintiffs.
[62] This action is stayed as against the plaintiffs Norall Group Inc. and Norall Group Contracting Inc. It may be recommenced by independent counsel acting on their behalf, if and when independent counsel is appointed, and pursuant to a duly authorized resolution of directors of each company.
[63] The moving parties request that the action be stayed in its entirety. I see no reason or authority to stay the action of Allan Curle, Bruce Johnson and Jeanette Johnson pending the possible appointment of independent counsel and the revival of the action on behalf of NGI and NGCI. Nor, in the circumstances, do I see that as just.
[64] Success on this motion has been divided. If the parties cannot agree on costs, they may file written submissions as to costs, not to exceed five pages exclusive of their respective Bills of Costs. The moving parties shall file their costs submissions within 14 days of the release of these reasons; the costs submissions of the responding parties shall be filed 7 days thereafter.
The Hon. Mr. Justice J.S. Fregeau
Released: October 7, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-438
DATE: 2014-10-07
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Allan Curle, Bruce Johnson, Jeanette Johnson, Norall Group Inc. and Norall Group Contracting Inc.
Plaintiffs
- and –
Gina Gustafson, Juanita Curle, Holly LeBrun, Carl Gustafson, and D.J. Gustafson Engineering Ltd. c.o.b. as Aegus Contracting
Defendants
REASONS ON MOTION
Fregeau J.
Released: October 7, 2014