Ward Western Holdings Corp. v. Brosseuk
Ward Western Holdings Corp.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

O.C. Hanson

Westrike Resources Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

O.C. Hanson

Raymond Brian Brosseuk
Law Firm / Organization
Sevenoaks Law
Lawyer(s)

Helen Sevenoaks

Jacqueline Grace Brosseuk
Law Firm / Organization
Sevenoaks Law
Lawyer(s)

Helen Sevenoaks

Peter Hipp
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Donna Hipp
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Hipp Joint Spousal Trust
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
R.J. Sales Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Northern Placer Technologies Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Affinity Law Corporation doing business as Affinity Law Group
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
D. Manning & Associates Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Bridgehouse Law LLP (BHL Vancouver)
Lawyer(s)

Benjamin La Borie

Accurate Effective Bailiffs Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Robert Slavik
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
  • Facts: Ward Western Holdings Corp. purchased 90% of Westrike Resources Ltd., which owned a gold mine, from the Brosseuk parties for $2 million plus a $4.5 million promissory note. A dispute arose, leading to Ward Western locking Mr. Brosseuk out of the mine operations.

  • Issue: The main issues were the alleged mismanagement of the mine by Mr. Brosseuk, the enforcement of security by the Brosseuk parties, and the subsequent appointment of D. Manning & Associates Inc. as a receiver. There were also disputes over the approval of the receiver’s fees and the distribution of sale proceeds from mining equipment.

  • Court’s Ruling: The court dismissed the application for the approval of the receiver’s fees due to insufficient detail provided and concerns over the disclosure of privileged information. It also dismissed the application for distribution of the sale proceeds to the Brosseuk parties due to unresolved disputes over the entitlement to the promissory note proceeds.

  • Costs/Damages: Specific costs or damages were not awarded in this decision. The court focused on the procedural aspects of the receiver’s fee approval and the distribution of sale proceeds, with costs of the application to be determined in the cause.

Supreme Court of British Columbia
S209762
Corporate & commercial law
Plaintiff