Interior Equities Corp. v. Cadence At The Lake Management Ltd.
Interior Equities Corp.
Law Firm / Organization
Rush Ihas Hardwick LLP
KF Capital Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Rush Ihas Hardwick LLP
Cadence At The Lake Management Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

C.T. Hart

Jane Doe
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

C.T. Hart

Joan Doe
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

C.T. Hart

John doe
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

C.T. Hart

Jack Doe
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

C.T. Hart

ABC Company
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

C.T. Hart

XYZ Company
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

C.T. Hart

Denise McMullen
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

J. Parker

Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

J. Parker

Grant Thornton LLP
Law Firm / Organization
Lawson Lundell LLP
Lawyer(s)

Scott J. Anderson

Background:
The case involved a limited partnership agreement, the Cadence LP Agreement, originally formed in 2007 for the purpose of developing real estate in Lake Country, BC. Interior Equities Corp. and KF Capital Ltd. were limited partners, while Cadence At The Lake Management Ltd. (CLM) served as the general partner. In 2019, CLM amended the agreement, affecting income distribution terms. Interior Equities Corp. and KF Capital Ltd. argued that this amendment unfairly reduced their share of distributions, violating their partnership rights.

Legal Arguments and Issues:
Interior Equities Corp. claimed the 2019 amendment was invalid and sought a court order to nullify it. CLM countered, asserting its right to amend the agreement as necessary. CLM also filed third-party claims against its legal counsel, Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP, and accounting firm, Grant Thornton LLP, alleging that if the plaintiffs’ interpretation was correct, the advisors had failed in their professional duties by drafting and reviewing documents incorrectly.

Grant Thornton moved to strike the third-party notice, arguing that CLM’s allegations could be addressed directly in the primary defense without additional third-party claims. The court, however, permitted the third-party claims to stand.

Judgment:
Justice Wilson ruled against Grant Thornton’s application, finding that the joint involvement of both the legal and accounting professionals in advising CLM justified the third-party notice.

Award and Costs:
No specific monetary award or costs were granted at this stage; rather, CLM retained the right to seek damages from the third-party advisors if held liable to the plaintiffs.

Supreme Court of British Columbia
S133590
Corporate & commercial law
Defendant