0976820 B.C. Ltd. v. Dorset Realty Group Canada Ltd.
0976820 B.C. Ltd. DBA Ackroyd Pets & Aquarium
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
William Wong
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Dorset Realty Group Canada Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Clyde & Co Canada LLP
Lawyer(s)

Vanessa Reakes

Colin Schuss
Law Firm / Organization
Clyde & Co Canada LLP
Lawyer(s)

Vanessa Reakes

Padilla Holdings Limited
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Warrington Management Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Lawyer(s)

Nathan Lapper

0998036 B.C. Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Lawyer(s)

Nathan Lapper

Background: The case involved two consolidated actions heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, concerning a commercial lease dispute. 0976820 B.C. Ltd. doing business as Ackroyd Pets & Aquarium and its director William Wong were the plaintiffs, against Dorset Realty Group Canada Ltd., Colin Schuss, Padilla Holdings Limited, Warrington PCI Management, and 0998036 B.C. Ltd. as defendants. The litigation arose from disagreements over a commercial lease and associated agent responsibilities at a shopping center in Richmond, British Columbia.

Legal Issues: The legal challenges focused on whether Colin Schuss, acting as a dual agent for both the tenant (Ackroyd) and the landlord (Padilla), had fulfilled his duties and whether the defendants had misled the plaintiffs about lease terms and tenant stability. The plaintiffs claimed misrepresentation and sought damages linked to the alleged improper handling of lease terms and tenant information.

Held: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for lack of evidence supporting their allegations. Subsequently, the defendants sought legal costs from the plaintiffs, arguing that the plaintiffs had unreasonably rejected offers to settle, which would have avoided further litigation expenses.

Costs/Damages Awarded: The court awarded uplifted costs to Dorset Realty Group Canada Ltd. and Colin Schuss, acknowledging the extended duration and complexity the plaintiffs unnecessarily imposed on the trial process. Costs were set at 1.5 times the typical amount under Scale B, although the exact total of the award was not specified in the provided document sections.

Supreme Court of British Columbia
S166420; S195407
Real estate
Defendant