Bc take five february 2016

Page 1

TAKE FIVE

BRITISH COLUMBIA EDITION

op

ONPOINT L E GAL R ES EA RCH Prepare to Win.

February 2016

Gracing our cover this month is the winning entry from our photo contest. The photo was taken by Trevor Todd in Petra, Jordan, January 2016. Trevor will receive a $50 giftcard for Starbucks. Thanks to Trevor and all who submitted entries — we welcome everyone to submit photos by March 15 for next month’s cover photo contest.

INSIDE THIS ISSUE: Featured Cases: P2 P6

Legal Profession Act; Review of Lawyers’ Accounts; Limitation Period; Champerty Contracts; Fraudulent Misrepresentation; Fresh Evidence; Witness Credibility ~ With Counsel

Comments

P11 Family Law; Spousal Support; Arrears; Material Change in Circumstances ~ With Counsel Comments P18

Loans; Promissory Notes; Unjust Enrichment; Equity Interest

P22

Self-Governing Professions; Bylaws; Judicial Review; Standard of Review


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson LLP v. Boss Power Corp., 2016 BCCA 1 Areas of Law: Legal Profession Act; Review of Lawyers’ Accounts; Limitation Period; Champerty ~The right to a review of a lawyers’ accounts is a chose in action and is assignable. It is not ousted by the Legal Profession Act~ CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE JUDGMENT

T

he Appellant, Blizzard Uranium Corp., is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Appellant Boss Power Corp. The Appellants owned various uranium claims throughout British Columbia, but in 2008 BC established a mineral reserve for uranium which effectively expropriated the Appellants’ claims. The Appellants retained the Respondent firm of Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson LLP to sue BC. Blizzard also held some claims (“B Claims”) in trust for Mr. Anthony Beruschi, who owned around 33 percent of the shares of Boss. The Court referred to Mr. Beruschi and his companies as “the Beruschi Group”. In March 2011, acting on instructions from the president and CEO of Boss, counsel amended the Appellants’ notice of civil claim to include the B Claims. In October 2011, counsel negotiated a settlement with BC whereby the Appellants would transfer all of the claims referred to in the notice of civil claim to BC in exchange for $30 million. The Beruschi Group objected to this and took the position that the Respondent had acted negligently by including the B Claims in the litigation. The Appellants and the Beruschi Group reached a settlement in March 2014.

LITIGATING OUTSIDE THE BOX.

Suite 300 – 1168 Hamilton Street, Vancouver, BC V6B 2S2 T 604 687 7007

TVSBARRISTERS.COM

2

OnPoint Legal Research | Take Five


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson LLP v. Boss Power Corp., (cont.)

Under the settlement agreement, the Beruschi Group would transfer the B Claims to BC in exchange for payment, a new subsidiary of Boss, called Blizzard Finance Corp., would be incorporated, and Boss would assign any and all of its potential causes of action against and rights to claim compensation from the Respondent to Blizzard Finance. Blizzard Finance was also assigned Boss’s rights to dispute and recover payments made by Boss on the Respondent’s accounts. There were delays in effecting the settlement, and an Arrangement Agreement was

eventually entered into on November 21, 2014. This was approved by the Court on January 22, 2015. Meanwhile, the Respondent’s final bill had been sent on May 30, 2014, and paid from the settlement proceeds on June 3, 2014. In September 2014 the Beruschi Group became aware that the Respondent’s bill had been paid and asked Boss to take out an appointment to review the Respondent’s accounts pursuant to the March 2014 agreement. The Respondent took the position that the appointment was out of time, because s. 70(b) of the

16.JeffDTake5Ad 16-02-18 11:59 AM Page 1

Built on Trust, Backed by Results Jeff Davis has been entrusted with the investment portfolios of legal professionals in British Columbia and Alberta for over a decade. Attuned to your needs, he understands that the demands of being a successful lawyer often result in a lack of time to manage your own investments. At Odlum Brown, Jeff develops investment strategies that are conflict-free and focused on creating and preserving the wealth and legacy of his clients. For over two decades, the results of the highly-regarded Odlum Brown Model Portfolio have been a testament to the quality of our advice.

Jeff Davis, B.Comm, CIM Vice President, Portfolio Manager

COMPOUND ANNUAL RETURNS (Including reinvested dividends, as of January 15, 2016) Odlum Brown Model Portfolio2 S&P/TSX Total Return Index

1 YEAR

3 YEAR

5 YEAR

10 YEAR

20 YEAR

INCEPTION1

5.0%

17.4%

14.2%

9.1%

15.3%

15.2%

-11.4%

1.5%

0.8%

3.3%

7.2%

7.7%

Let us make a case for adding value to your portfolio, contact Jeff today at 604-844-5404 or toll-free at 1-888-886-3586. Visit odlumbrown.com/jdavis for more information. December 15, 1994. 2 The Model was established by the Research Department in December 1994, with a hypothetical investment of $250,000. The Model provides a basis with which to measure the quality of our advice and the effectiveness of our disciplined investment strategy. Trades are made using the closing price on the day a change is announced. These are gross figures before fees. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Member-Canadian Investor Protection Fund

1

February 2016

3


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson LLP v. Boss Power Corp., (cont.) Legal Profession Act provides that a bill may be reviewed before three months after the bill was paid. After three months, a paid bill may only be reviewed if the court finds that “special circumstances” justify it. On December 30, 2014 the Registrar ordered that Blizzard Finance apply for an extension of time. On May 1, 2015, a trial judge dismissed the application to extend time. The trial judge referred to a number of authorities addressing the special circumstances requirement. The judge considered it significant that Boss never complained about the bill, and found that the size of the bill alone would not have moved him to find special circumstances. He considered that the assignment to Blizzard Finance was champertous, because Blizzard Finance did not have a commercial interest in the cause of action.

APPELLATE DECISION

T

he appeal was allowed. The Appellants asserted that the judge erred in finding that the assignment was champertous, and in suggesting that there were not special circumstances justifying an extension of time to review the account. The Court of Appeal noted that the Legal Profession Act does not provide for the assignment of a client’s right to an assessment. Such a right must be an implied contractual term, and it is said to flow from the court’s inherent jurisdiction to review lawyers’ accounts. This inherent jurisdiction has not been taken away by the Act. The Respondent contended that the Appellants did not have standing to seek the assessment because they were not charged with paying the account. The Respondent pointed to the language of s. 69 of the Act, under which “person charged” “includes a person who has agreed to pay for legal services, whether or not the services were provided on the person’s behalf ”. The Respondent took the position that because Blizzard Finance did not pay the bill, it had no standing to seek an assessment. The Court of Appeal was not persuaded, noting that the definition is inclusive. The Appellants were persons charged and had a right

4

OnPoint Legal Research | Take Five


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson LLP v. Boss Power Corp., (cont.)

of review, limited only by champerty. However, in this case the assignment of the Appellants’ rights was not champertous, because the Beruschi Group had a pre-existing commercial interest in the right of the Appellants to seek a review of the Respondent’s accounts. Furthermore, the Beruschi Group did not learn that the bill had been paid until September 2014, which constituted a special circumstance. The size of the bill was also a relevant factor.

Help create a better future for everyone touched by cancer. Discovery needs willing partners. When your client remembers the BC Cancer Foundation in their will, they’ll be supporting world-renowned research in BC that is shaping the future of cancer care. Please be sure to use the full legal name of our organization:

BC Cancer Foundation Registration Number: 11881 8434 RR0001 For more information, please contact 604.877.6040 or legacy@bccancer.bc.ca

February 2016

5


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

Ma v. Nutriview Systems Inc., 2016 BCCA 4 Areas of Law: Contracts; Fraudulent Misrepresentation; Fresh Evidence; Witness Credibility ~A trier of fact does not engage in propensity reasoning when he concludes that a party to a contract conducted himself in a certain way based on other conduct throughout the negotiation and execution of the contract~ CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE JUDGMENT

T

was found by the trial judge to be a shrewd businessman who had acquired the business only one day before selling the franchise to the Respondent, and who suggested to the Respondent that the business had a high potential of success and profits. The contract stated that the purchase price was non-refundable. However, the Respondent maintained that Mr.

he Respondent, Mr. Harry Ma, entered a contract for purchase with the Appellant Mr. Brian Thurston, principal of the corporate Appellant Nutriview Systems Inc., to conduct the Nutriview vending machine business in certain school districts. The Respondent was 22 years old at the time and was not experienced in business. Mr. Thurston

6

OnPoint Legal Research | Take Five


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

Ma v. Nutriview Systems Inc., (cont.) Thurston had assured him he would buy back the franchise for the full purchase price within the first year if for any reason the Respondent was dissatisfied with it. When the Respondent contacted Mr. Thurston to say that the venture was not working out and that he wished to be repaid the franchise fee, Mr. Thurston denied having given the Respondent a buy-back guarantee. The Respondent walked away from the business in March 2011, after which the Appellants hired a Mr. Kara to service the vending machines. The Appellants agreed with Mr. Kara to split revenue on a 50/50 basis, and over time the business became successful. At trial the judge found as fact that Mr. Thurston had told the Respondent not to seek independent legal counsel in entering the contract. He also found that the amount Mr. Thurston had paid for the business was much lower than the amount the Respondent paid to franchise it, and that Mr. Kara received only $2000 per month to operate the business: far less than what the Respondent had paid. The trial judge held that the Respondent trusted Mr. Thurston and

February 2016

7


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

Ma v. Nutriview Systems Inc., (cont.) did not want to offend him by insisting on seeking legal advice. The trial judge found, based on the evidence surrounding the execution of the contract, that Mr. Thurston’s conduct generally was consistent with the conclusion that Mr. Thurston had made a fraudulent misrepresentation when he promised a money-back guarantee orally but had not put one in the written contract. This required the trial judge to prefer the Respondent’s evidence over that of the Appellants. The trial judge also noted that Mr. Thurston was argumentative on cross-examination, and found him to be less than credible. The Respondent was entitled to the full amount he had paid to obtain the franchise.

APPELLATE DECISION

T

he appeal was dismissed. Counsel for the Appellants argued that the trial judge’s conclusions were prohibited by the principle that character evidence may not be used as circumstantial proof of conduct. However, the Court of Appeal found that this principle as set out in R. v. Handy and R. v. L.B. was not relevant in the current case. The trial judge was not presented with similar fact evidence, nor with the prejudicial effect of prior conduct tending to support a general disposition or propensity for fraud. He found that Mr. Thurston acted in a particular way in his negotiations with the Respondent, not that Mr. Thurston had a pre-existing tendency to do so, or that Mr. Thurston had done something similar on a separate occasion. Accordingly, the trial judge did not err in concluding based on all of the evidence regarding the negotiation and execution of the contract that Mr. Thurston made the fraudulent misrepresentation. On appeal the Appellants also sought to adduce new evidence to the effect that the Respondent had contacted Mr. Kara and told him that if he gave favourable testimony in the trial, the Respondent would reimburse him for outstanding school commissions that had been left unpaid when the Respondent walked away from the business. Mr. Kara’s affidavit stated that after the trial judgment was released, he received $10,000 in cash delivered in a plain envelope through his mail slot. The majority refused to admit this fresh evidence, finding that it

8

OnPoint Legal Research | Take Five


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

Ma v. Nutriview Systems Inc., (cont.)

test in Palmer, being whether the evidence could have been adduced at trial, whether it had bearing on a potentially decisive issue in the trial, whether it was reasonably capable of belief, and whether it could be expected to have affected the result of the trial. She found that the test would not normally be satisfied on the stricter approach to fresh evidence taken in civil cases, but concluded that the interests of justice would not be served by turning a blind eye to an allegation of bribery.

was insufficiently credible and that the Respondent’s conduct at trial in no way supported the suggestion that he had bribed Mr. Kara. He did not call Mr. Kara as a witness, nor did his counsel cross-examine Mr. Kara. The fresh evidence did not accord with the known facts and made no sense in the context of the trial evidence. It did not meet the credibility test in R. v. Palmer. Madam Justice Newbury would have ordered a new trial on the basis of the fresh evidence. She applied the

February 2016

9


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

COUNSEL COMMENTS Ma v. Nutriview Systems Inc., 2016 BCCA 4

Counsel Comments provided by Nathan S. Ganapathi, Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent

“T

he introductory been made. He found that paragraphs of the Plaintiff relied on those the trial judge’s misrepresentations and that reasons for judgment, in they induced him to enter into which he comments on the the contract for the purchase aptitude and skills of the of the franchise, and to pay a parties, may have led counsel grossly inflated amount for the on appeal to rely on the purchase of the franchise. “propensity” argument. The Nathan S. Ganapathi learned trial judge however On appeal, the Appellant made no connection between such relied upon R. v. Handy 2002 SCC 56 characteristics and the contract, but (CanLII). The court however concluded instead found that there were positive that the trial judge had not been misstatements of fact made by the presented with similar fact evidence, Defendant Thurston, which were proved nor with the prejudicial effect of prior by clear and cogent evidence. conduct tending to support a “general disposition or propensity for fraud.” The The trial judge found three knowingly appeal was dismissed.” fraudulent misrepresentations to have

10

OnPoint Legal Research | Take Five


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

Boekhoff v. Boekhoff, 2016 BCCA 33 Areas of Law: Family Law; Spousal Support; Arrears; Material Change in Circumstances ~Agreeing to accept a lower amount of spousal support does not create a binding contract where no consideration is given, but may constitute waiver of the right to a higher amount~ CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE JUDGMENT

T

he Appellant, Jayne Boekhoff, and the Respondent, Gerald Boekhoff, were married for over 20 years. Throughout this time the Appellant remained primarily at home to care for the parties’ two children. Both children have health and developmental difficulties. The parties divorced in 1997, and at trial the Respondent was ordered to pay $800 per month in spousal support on an indefinite basis. In late 2000 or early 2001, the parties discussed the ongoing spousal support payments. The Respondent said that the parties agreed at that time to reduce payments to $200 per month, mainly with the goal of providing financial assistance for their son, L. The Appellant said that she was pressured into agreeing to the reduction by other people present at the meeting. Between 2001 and 2008, the Respondent paid the Appellant $200 per month and the Appellant provided him with receipts for the full $800. She took no issue with the amount of the support payments for almost 10 years. In 2010 counsel for the Appellant

Art Rental & Sales Vancouver Art Gallery

www.artrentalandsales.com

info@artrentalandsales.com

Cover photo: Rachel Topham, Vancouver Art Gallery

February 2016

11


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

Boekhoff v. Boekhoff, (cont.) sent the Respondent a letter requesting the reinstatement of the full $800 and arrears alleged to have accrued since the 2001 meeting. Counsel for the Respondent answered that the parties had agreed to reduce spousal support payments in 2001. In March 2014 the Appellant commenced an application seeking payment of $99,000 in arrears and reinstatement of the monthly payments, in an amount considered appropriate by the court. The Respondent opposed the application and sought to vary the 1997 order by either terminating or reducing support. At summary trial, the judge concluded that the parties had come to an agreement in 2001 to reduce the spousal support. Implicit in this conclusion was a finding that

12

the agreement was not the result of duress. The summary trial judge found the facts justified an order cancelling arrears, and found that the Appellant had not suffered financially as a result of the reduction. He held that she was estopped from alleging an entitlement to the arrears, having agreed to the reduction. After reviewing the parties’ current circumstances, the summary trial judge reinstated prospective spousal support to $800 on an indeterminate basis, noting that the parties’ incomes would be roughly equal under such an award. He considered this to be fair given the duration of the marriage and the economic disadvantage the Appellant suffered after its dissolution.

OnPoint Legal Research | Take Five


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

Boekhoff v. Boekhoff, (cont.)

Actually... what you don’t know can hurt you. APPELLATE DECISION

T

he appeal was dismissed and the cross-appeal allowed in part. The Appellant argued that the trial judge erred in concluding that the parties had reached an agreement in 2001. She stated that she felt bullied by the Respondent and that she was living with an abusive partner at the time of the meeting, a partner who attended the meeting with her and stated that she would take the $200. The summary trial judge accepted the Appellant’s evidence to the extent that the partner was present and that it was he who said she did not need the additional support. However, there was ample evidence for the summary trial judge to conclude that the Appellant agreed to the reduced amount, including the fact that the Appellant took no steps after her relationship with the abusive partner ended to enforce the terms of the original support order or seek arrears. The Court of Appeal noted that the summary trial judge did not address the issue of whether the 2001 agreement was legally binding. The Court found that it was not, as no consideration flowed from the Respondent to the Appellant, but found that the Appellant waived her right to receive $800 payments between January 2001 and March 2014. Although the 2010 letter could have amounted to withdrawal of waiver, the fact that the

February 2016

13


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

We all clerked at the BCCA or the SCC. We all litigated with major downtown firms. We excel at appellate work: advising, strategizing, and drafting. We have over 15 years of experience and have assisted over 450 clients.

14

OnPoint Legal Research | Take Five


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

Boekhoff v. Boekhoff, (cont.)

Appellant took no further steps to collect arrears or increased payments until 2014 signified that the letter did not have the effect of withdrawing the waiver. While the summary trial judge erred in principle when he failed to apply s. 17 of the Divorce Act in considering variation of the spousal support order, it was clear that there had been a material change in circumstances and the Court agreed with the judge’s conclusion that arrears should be cancelled. The Respondent cross-appealed the reinstatement of the $800 per month support. The Court considered that the summary trial judge did not refer to statutory authority for making this order, nor did he explicitly consider the extent of the material change in circumstances. He did not directly address the two separate enquiries of entitlement and quantum, and he seemed to work from the proposition that the parties were entitled to approximately equal income. This was in error, as was the summary trial judge’s failure to refer to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines. The Court applied the Guidelines and, considering the parties’ incomes, found that monthly spousal support of $424 per month retroactive to March 2014 was appropriate.

Now you know. op February 2016

15

ONPOINT LEGAL RESEARCH


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

COUNSEL COMMENTS Boekhoff v. Boekhoff, 2016 BCCA 33 Counsel Comments provided by Mark R. Slay and Ludmila Marenco, Counsel for the Respondent

“T

he appeal in this case raised the issue of the cancellation of spousal support arrears. From a practical point Mark R. Slay of view, this case tells us that if you wish to deviate from what original Court order, you should always get the new agreement in writing. This would have benefited Mr. Boekhoff in this case. Notwithstanding the lack of proof of a written or oral agreement, the Court of Appeal focused on the actions of the parties to reach, in our opinion, a just result. The Court of Appeal illustrated in this decision that it will not countenance inaction from the recipient party who many years later seeks to claim arrears of support. This decision demonstrates, that in certain cases, failing to take steps expeditiously to enforce payment of

16

support could prove fatal to the recipient party when seeking arrears. With respect to the cross appeal, the Court of Appeal Ludmila Marenco had to make a determination of ongoing spousal support. The Court of Appeal in this decision reiterated the applicability and usefulness of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (the “SSAG”) in variation applications. Importantly, the Court of Appeal found that this case was appropriate for the application of the SSAG, even when the original order preceded the introduction of the SSAG. Also of note are the comments made by the Court of Appeal with respect to the summary trial judge’s error when, in his analysis of entitlement and quantum

OnPoint Legal Research | Take Five


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

COUNSEL COMMENTS Boekhoff v. Boekhoff, (cont.)

for spousal support, began from the proposition that the parties’ incomes should be equalized. The Court of Appeal rightly clarified that the entitlement of having approximately equal incomes is not the primary criteria in variation applications. The troubling aspect of this decision was that no termination date was offered by either the court below or the Court of Appeal. In this case, the spousal support paid by Mr. Boekhoff exceeded the length of time the parties were together. Moreover, it was established that the recipient spouse had improved her financial circumstances since their divorce. The Court of Appeal, however, made an order for ongoing spousal support on an indefinite basis and on the high range as suggested by the SSAG. The Court of Appeal justified this decision by indicating that the order was on a compensatory basis. This case may be confined to its facts, but if not, on a precedential basis is worrisome for the payor, whom, after paying spousal support for a longer period of time than the length of his relationship with the recipient, continues to face the uncertainty of an “indefinite” spousal support obligation.”

February 2016

17


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

Jacobs v. Yehia, 2016 BCCA 38 Areas of Law: Loans; Promissory Notes; Unjust Enrichment; Equity Interest ~Where an agreement is premised on the conversion of one party’s loan to the other into equity, and the basis for conversion is not agreed upon by the parties, there is no consideration and the agreement is not enforceable~

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE JUDGMENT

T

he individual Appellant, Mr. Yehia, owns and controls the corporate Appellants, collectively known as the Cambie Malone Group. The individual Respondent, Mr. Jacobs, owns and controls the corporate Respondents, 657947 B.C. Ltd. and Columbia Cottage Ltd. In 2002 Mr. Jacobs loaned $200,000 to Mr. Yehia through Columbia Cottage Ltd. The loan was secured by a promissory note and signed by both parties. On January 27, 2003, Mr. Jacobs advanced a second loan to Mr. Yehia in the amount of $500,000. Both promissory notes obliged Mr. Yehia to pay the money advanced plus 12% interest to Columbia Cottage Ltd. Mr. Yehia paid some interest on the loans, but stopped when the parties came to an agreement that the loans

Blair Mackay Mynett Valuations Inc. is the leading independent business valuation and litigation support practice in British Columbia. Our practice focus i s o n busi nes s valu atio n s, m e rge rs and acquisitions, economic loss claims, forensic accounting and other litigation accounting matters. We can provide your clients with the knowledge and experience they require. Suite 700 1177 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC, V6E 2K3 Telephone: 604.687.4544 Facsimile: 604.687.4577 www.bmmvaluations.com

Left to Right: Farida Sukhia, Gary M. W. Mynett, Kiu Ghanavizchian, Rober t D. Mackay, Cheryl Shearer, Chris Halsey-Brand t, Vern Bla i r, Andrew L. Mackenzie, Andy Shaw, Jeff P. Matthews, Jessica Jiang

18

OnPoint Legal Research | Take Five


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

Jacobs v. Yehia, (cont.)

would be converted to equity. Mr. Jacobs would receive shares in the companies and the parties would sign a shareholder agreement. However, the parties did not agree on the percentage of equity to which Mr. Jacobs would be entitled. On Mr. Yehia’s calculation, Mr. Jacobs’ equity

February 2016

19

interest would have been 10-12%, whereas Mr. Jacobs’ calculation would have resulted in a 34-35% equity interest. On January 27, 2004, Mr. Jacobs loaned an additional $267,000 to Mr. Yehia. No promissory note was executed. The parties continued to disagree on several points, but


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

Jacobs v. Yehia, (cont.) executed a shareholder agreement in February 2005. This agreement did not specify terms, time, or manner of the conversion of the loans. The parties executed two further agreements in October 2009, one of which stated that Mr. Jacobs had loaned Mr. Yehia $967,000 and that Mr. Yehia would provide Mr. Jacobs with a personal guarantee for the full amount owing. However, the agreement made no provision for interest. In July 2010 Mr. Yehia gave notice to terminate the 2009 agreements, and paid $967,000 to Mr. Jacobs. The Respondents sued, asserting that the 2009 loan agreement was unconscionable. They sought rescission and a declaration that they held an equitable interest in the form of a trust in the Cambie Malone Group. They also claimed damages for breach of contract or, in the alternative, sought a declaration of partnership. They asserted that the Appellants were unjustly enriched. The trial judge concluded that the two men were not partners, and found Mr. Yehia in breach of the 2002 loan agreement, by failing to pay interest from September 2003 to February 2005. The 2009 agreements were not unconscionable and were not repudiated by Mr. Yehia, but he was unjustly enriched. The trial judge held that the Respondents were entitled to judgment for unpaid interest, and a declaration that the Appellants were unjustly enriched between February 2005 and October 2009. She found that the 2005 agreement terminated the 2002 agreement, and that from that point on there was no juristic reason for Mr. Yehia’s retention of the benefit he derived from the loan funds. APPELLATE DECISION

T

he appeal was allowed in part. The Court of Appeal found that the 2005 agreement was not enforceable because it was premised on the conversion of the loans to equity in the Cambie Malone Group, and the basis for the conversion was never agreed upon. This amounted to a failure of consideration. Therefore, the 2002 loan agreement survived and it continued to be a juristic reason for Mr. Yehia’s retention of the benefits he derived from the loan funds.

20

OnPoint Legal Research | Take Five


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

Jacobs v. Yehia, (cont.)

Mr. Jacobs had a right to the interest owed, and Mr. Yehia was enriched to the extent that he did not pay interest, but Mr. Jacobs had no interest in the businesses because the parties did not agree on the terms that would have given him such interest. Although the 2009 agreements did not specifically set an interest rate on the loans, the Court of Appeal saw nothing in the language of those agreements or in the factual matrix to suggest that Mr. Jacobs was forgiving the interest that had accrued, or forgoing interest for the future. To interpret the 2009 agreements as absolving Mr. Yehia of the obligation to pay 12% interest on a $967,000 loan would make no business sense. The Court of Appeal found Mr. Yehia and the Cambie Malone’s Corporation liable for interest at 12% from the time the money was advanced to July 30, 2010, being the day the loans were paid. Mr. Yehia was in breach of the October 2009 agreements by failing to pay interest owed, but the finding of unjust enrichment was set aside.

February 2016

21


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

Sobeys West Inc. v. College of Pharmacists of British Columbia, 2016 BCCA 41 Areas of Law: Self-Governing Professions; Bylaws; Judicial Review; Standard of Review ~In the absence of a Charter challenge, a self-governing professional body does not have to take the least intrusive path when adopting a bylaw, for that bylaw to be found reasonable~ CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE JUDGMENT

T

he Appellant College of Pharmacists of British Columbia enacted bylaws prohibiting pharmacists from making “customer incentive programs” available to patients in order to induce the purchase of pharmacy services, drugs or devices from specific pharmacies or pharmacists. The bylaws were adopted in part to address concerns that some methadone dispensing pharmacies were engaging in substandard practice and giving cash incentives in exchange for prescriptions. Customer incentive programs benefited companies including the Respondents, Sobeys West Inc. and Jace Holdings Ltd., which operate Safeway and Thrifty Foods stores respectively. The Respondents filed a petition on December 5, 2013 seeking judicial review of the bylaws. They asserted that the Appellant’s purpose in adopting the bylaws was to prevent patients from choosing a pharmacy based on price or to reduce or eliminate competition between pharmacies on the basis of

22

price. The Respondents argued that the Appellant had not made any reference to research or objective data to support the need to prohibit the customer incentive programs. The Respondents argued that customers want incentive programs and that research shows patients have better medication adherence where loyalty programs are in place. Loyalty programs, the Respondents argued, encourage patients to stay with the same pharmacy care provider, which in turn improves medication histories and solidifies patient-pharmacist relationships. The Respondents also applied for an interim injunction concurrent with the petition. The injunction application was dismissed, but the judicial review judge found that there was no evidence of actual harm that could justify a broad prohibition of incentives, the bylaws went beyond what could be required to address the theoretical harms envisioned by the Appellant, and the net effect of the bylaws was harmful to the public interest. The judicial review judge

OnPoint Legal Research | Take Five


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

Sobeys West Inc. v. College of Pharmacists of British Columbia, (cont.)

identified the standard of review as reasonableness. He was not persuaded that the bylaws were adopted in order to protect the business of smaller pharmacies or affect their ability to compete with larger ones. Although he accepted that it was not necessary for the Appellant to show actual harm, he rejected the Appellant’s argument that, provided its council members had a bona fide reasonable belief that the programs posed some risk of harm to the public or to the standards

of the profession, their adoption of the bylaws must be respected by the courts. He characterized the council’s determination that the public interest favoured the bylaws as conjectural. The judge concluded that the impugned bylaws fell outside the range of possible acceptable outcomes, given the competing public interests as well as the Appellant’s ability to pass narrower bylaws. He struck the bylaws down in their entirety.

APPELLATE DECISION

T

he appeal was allowed. The Appellant asserted that the judicial review judge erred in his interpretation and application of the reasonableness standard of review. It also alleged that the judge erred by conflating the common law principles and evidentiary requirements applicable to interim injunction applications with administrative law principles governing judicial review of the bylaw-making functions of self-governing health professions. The Court of Appeal considered the jurisprudence with

February 2016

23

respect to the reasonableness standard, noting that the judicial review judge applied Lindsay v. Manitoba (Motor Transport), a 1989 Manitoba Court of Appeal decision in which the court observed that a policy decision must “find justification in the facts”. The Court pointed out that Lindsay did not involve a judicial review, and did not think that it should have bearing on whether the impugned bylaws met the reasonableness standard set out almost 20 years later in Dunsmuir. The judicial review judge applied too high


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

Sobeys West Inc. v. College of Pharmacists of British Columbia, (cont.)

a degree of scrutiny, deprecating anecdotal evidence and requiring empirical evidence of harm. He erred in finding that the bylaws did not lie within the range of reasonable outcomes because they could have been narrower. In the absence of a Charter challenge, the Appellant was not required to select the least intrusive path nor wait for empirical evidence showing the harm of incentive programs. The Appellant’s decision did not lie outside the range of possible, acceptable outcomes, and the substance of the bylaws conformed to the rationale of the statutory regime to which the Appellant is subject.

Not everything makes sense. Fortunately, hiring us does. A L L O F O U R R E S E A R C H L AW Y E R S H AV E C O M P L E T E D C L E R K S H I P S A L L H A V E P R A C T I C E D A S L I T I G AT O R S AT M A J O R F I R M S FA C TA , P L E A D I N G S , M E M O R A N D A , L E G A L S T R AT E G Y

op www.onpointlaw.com

ONPOINT

LEGAL RESEARCH

604.879.4280

24

Lawyers helping lawyers for over 15 years

info@onpointlaw.com OnPoint Legal Research | Take Five


604.879.4280 | info@onpointlaw.com

Who is OnPoint?

W

atch our video to learn about OnPoint.

Click here. “OnPoint has always performed in a timely, effective and professional manner and has done excellent work at a reasonable price. We do not hesitate to use their services.”

Who We Are: All OnPoint research lawyers have clerked with the Court of Appeal of B.C. or Alberta, and all have practised as litigators with major downtown law firms. What We Do: We provide the same assistance as do litigation associates at a firm. We complete a variety of projects, from complex memoranda and factums, to pleadings and written summaries of argument for use at trial. Many of our clients consider using our services as equivalent to relying upon work completed by in-house associates, and add a measure of profit accordingly when billing their own clients. T. 604.879.4280 E. info@onpointlaw.com w. www.onpointlaw.com

Larry Kahn, QC and Marvin Lithwick, Kahn Zack Ehrlich Lithwick Sarah Picciotto, B.A., LL.B. Founder

“OnPoint is my choice for legal research help because I enjoy their engaged and refreshing curiosity for the task. At the same time they appreciate the need to be cost effective and are quick to suggest collegial ways to share the task.”

“All of us at Taylor Veinotte Sullivan use OnPoint’s researchers on our cases. OnPoint’s expertise in a wide range of complicated commercial litigation is invaluable to a firm of our size and is also a real costs savings to our clients.”

Dirk J. Sigalet Q.C.

Carey Veinotte, Taylor Veinotte Sullivan

February 2016

25


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.