Executive Summary – Key Legal & Evidentiary Issues

• Multiple tort claims alleged by the plaintiff (civil fraud, abuse of process, emotional distress) were found to lack legal and factual foundation.

• Plaintiff accused the law firm (PCM) of fraudulent conduct and misrepresentation despite not being a party to the settlement.

• Claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress were dismissed due to absence of flagrant conduct and failure to show provable harm.

• No reasonable cause of action identified; many allegations were speculative, inflammatory, or already decided in prior proceedings.

• Attempts to link PCM’s legal advocacy to abuse of process and misconduct were rejected as normal litigation conduct.

• The court struck the claims entirely, awarded $2,000 in lump-sum costs, and removed the law firm from the case.

Facts of the Case

Corinne Pereira, the plaintiff, brought a civil action against her former employer, Dexterra Group Inc., the employer’s legal counsel Pulver Crawford Munroe LLP (PCM), and the union Unite Here Local 40, which represented her during her employment-related grievance process. The lawsuit stems from her termination in September 2020, which followed internal complaints she made about alleged workplace safety violations and harassment.

Pereira alleged that:

• She was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for reporting workplace bullying and safety concerns, actions protected under the Workers Compensation Act (WCA).

• The union (Unite) and employer (Dexterra) colluded in a fraudulent settlement agreement.

• PCM Lawyers, acting for Dexterra, committed a series of legal and ethical violations, including:

  • Civil fraud,

  • Abuse of process,

  • Breach of settlement agreement,

  • Intentional infliction of emotional distress,

  • Fraud on the court.

According to Pereira, the actions of PCM and the other defendants caused her substantial emotional, reputational, and financial harm over the course of more than three years of litigation.

She claimed that the defendants sought to shield their misconduct by manipulating legal processes, including misusing legal privilege, filing misleading court documents, and refiling settled applications to delay or obstruct her proceedings.

Arguments and Court’s Analysis

Since there was no discussion of policy terms or insurance clauses, the court focused exclusively on whether the plaintiff’s pleadings disclosed valid legal causes of action. The court’s reasoning was organized under the following legal heads:

Civil Fraud

The court found that the pleadings failed to establish the essential elements of civil fraud:

• No false representation was made by PCM upon which Pereira relied.
• The plaintiff claimed she always knew the settlement was fraudulent, which undermines any assertion that she was deceived.
• The court concluded the claim for civil fraud was bound to fail.

Abuse of Process

The tort of abuse of process requires:

1. A previous legal proceeding initiated for an improper purpose,
2. A specific act of misuse of that process,
3. Resulting damages.

The court held:

• PCM never initiated proceedings against Pereira (they were Dexterra’s counsel).
• The plaintiff's accusations were mostly speculative and unsubstantiated.
• Therefore, this claim also could not succeed.

Breach of Settlement Agreement

This claim failed on procedural grounds:

• PCM was not a party to the settlement agreement.
• Only Dexterra, as her former employer, was a signatory.
• The law firm could not have breached an agreement to which it was not legally bound.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

This tort requires:

1. Outrageous or flagrant conduct,
2. Intent to cause harm,
3. Resulting visible and provable illness.

The court found:

• The allegations against PCM were exaggerated and lacked evidentiary support.
• Their conduct, as legal counsel, fell within the boundaries of permissible advocacy.
• No medical or legal proof of a recognized psychiatric injury was provided.
• Claim dismissed as legally deficient.

Fraud on the Court

To prove this, the plaintiff must show:

1. Clear and cogent evidence of intentional deception,
2. That the deception materially affected prior judgments,
3. That she lacked knowledge of the fraud earlier,
4. That there was no undue delay.

The court found:

• Pereira had knowledge of all the alleged "fraudulent facts" long before this proceeding.
• No clear or cogent evidence was presented to support the allegation.
• The prior decisions of the Labour Relations Board, Supreme Court, and Court of Appeal had all been finalized and affirmed.

Outcome of the Case

Justice Harvey, writing for the Supreme Court of British Columbia, ruled as follows:

• All claims against PCM were struck for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

• The action against Pulver Crawford Munroe LLP was dismissed in full.

• The law firm’s name was removed from the case caption.

• The plaintiff was ordered to pay $2,000 in lump-sum costs.

• The court declined to allow amendments to the pleadings, citing the extensive litigation history and the futility of any reformulation.