Low v. Straiton Development Corporation
Sheila Low
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

D.W. Donohoe

Anne Stene as administrator of the Estate of Gundhart U. Fleischer, Deceased
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

D.W. Donohoe

Straiton Development Corporation
Law Firm / Organization
Nixon Wenger LLP
Lawyer(s)

Brent Meckling

0746149 B.C. Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Nixon Wenger LLP
Lawyer(s)

Brent Meckling

0746154 B.C. Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Nixon Wenger LLP
Lawyer(s)

Brent Meckling

0746157 B.C. Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Nixon Wenger LLP
Lawyer(s)

Brent Meckling

White Castle Ventures Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

R. Soni

Abby Mews Development Corporation
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

R. Soni

Background: The case "Low v. Straiton Development Corporation" was adjudicated in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, where Sheila Low and Anne Stene, as administrator of the estate of Gundhart U. Fleischer, sued Straiton Development Corporation, 0746149 B.C. Ltd., 0746154 B.C. Ltd., 0746157 B.C. Ltd., White Castle Ventures Inc., and Abby Mews Development Corporation. The plaintiffs contested entitlements under a joint venture agreement related to a real estate development project.

Legal Issues:

  1. Entitlement to the distribution of sale proceeds from joint venture real estate according to specific contract clauses.
  2. Claims for special and increased costs due to alleged meritless litigation and non-disclosure of relevant documents by the plaintiffs.

Court's Decision: The court found that Abby Mews and White Castle Ventures Inc. successfully defended the claim regarding monies payable under the joint venture agreement. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims as they failed to prove entitlement to the disputed $877,500 designated for Abby Mews in the joint venture's distribution scheme.

Costs/Damages: Regarding costs, the court awarded regular Scale B costs to Abby Mews and White Castle Ventures Inc. The request for special costs was denied as the court did not find the plaintiffs' actions sufficiently reprehensible. The defendants' claim for increased costs was also denied due to the ordinary complexity of the issues involved. Financial terms were not specified.

Supreme Court of British Columbia
S179364
Real estate
Defendant