S. J. Erskine

The court considered a motion by the moving defendants for an order requiring the plaintiff, River City Christian Reformed Church, to pay security for costs under Rule 56.01(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, a not-for-profit corporation, sought relief for alleged fraud, misrepresentation, breach of duty, oppression, and unjust enrichment relating to a failed property acquisition.

The court found that the plaintiff was impecunious and that its claim was not plainly devoid of merit, and therefore dismissed the motion for security for costs.

The plaintiff, Jason Imola, brought a motion for leave to amend his statement of claim to add John Esteireiro as a defendant and assert claims for misrepresentation and intentional or unlawful interference with economic relations.

The proposed amendments arose from Mr. Esteireiro's alleged conduct during a transition period following an asset sale, including misrepresentations about the plaintiff's employment and directing him to conduct personal, unsupervised "grey market" trades.

The court granted leave to amend, finding the proposed claims legally tenable and arising from the same factual matrix, and that allowing the amendments would promote the convenient administration of justice without causing irremediable prejudice.

A consultant sued a corporation for unpaid fees under a month‑to‑month consulting services agreement providing monthly compensation plus expenses.

The defendant argued the contract was frustrated and unenforceable because the consultant could not legally work in Canada without immigration authorization and had failed to secure investment funding.

The court rejected these defences, finding the primary purpose of the contract was to obtain American venture‑capital investment and that the consultant had substantially performed her services from the United States with the defendant’s knowledge and encouragement.

The defendant had waived any requirement that work be performed in Canada and had continued to praise the consultant’s work while failing to pay agreed fees.

Judgment was granted for the outstanding consulting fees with pre‑judgment interest.