Smith v. Howse
Jason Smith
Law Firm / Organization
Pushor Mitchell LLP
Simon Howse
Law Firm / Organization
Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP
Lawyer(s)

Heather L. Jones

Parastone Developments Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP
Lawyer(s)

Heather L. Jones

Montane Developments Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP
Lawyer(s)

Heather L. Jones

West Fernie Developments LP
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
578097 BC Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
0875750 BC Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Eeto and Unta Holdings Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Hanover Can Co. ULC
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Parastone Holdings Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
901 Fernie Property Developments Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
901 Fernie Limited Partnership
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented

Background: The properties in question were part of a 500-acre development in Fernie, BC. Jason Smith, a minority shareholder, alleged oppression by Simon Howse and related companies. Smith claimed unfair treatment regarding dividends, property sales, and company management, which he argued diminished the value of his shares. He also sought remedies for wrongful dismissal.

Legal Arguments/Issues
Smith's claims included:

  • Shareholder Oppression: Alleged that Howse's actions were unfair and prejudicial, seeking remedies under the Business Corporations Act.
  • Constructive Trust and Tracing Remedies: Sought to claim a trust over the properties and assert a CPL based on corporate assets.
  • Wrongful Dismissal: Filed a separate claim for wrongful termination due to alleged substance abuse issues.

The defendants contested these claims, arguing the CPLs were improperly filed and caused undue hardship by impeding financing for the development.

Analysis and Decision: Justice Branch found that the Notice of Civil Claim (NCC) did not sufficiently link the CPLs to specific properties, failing to demonstrate a proprietary interest. The court also acknowledged the hardship and inconvenience caused to the defendants by the CPLs, which affected their financing options.

Conclusion: The court ordered the CPLs canceled and required the plaintiff to pay costs in favor of the defendants. The exact amount of costs or awards was not specified in the document.

Supreme Court of British Columbia
1400445
Corporate & commercial law
Defendant