Blue Pier Administration Corp V. Bank of Nova Scotia et al.
BLUE PIER ADMINISTRATION CORP.
Lawyer(s)

Peter Smiley

Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Rona Gao

BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA
Law Firm / Organization
Torys LLP
MD FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED
Law Firm / Organization
Torys LLP

Issues:

  1. Blue Pier Administration Corp. (Plaintiff) sought to amend its statement of claim.
  2. Bank of Nova Scotia and MD Financial Management Limited (Defendants) moved to strike the statement of claim, alleging it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

Key Claims

  1. Breach of Confidence:

    • Allegation: Defendants misused confidential information from a proposed pension plan to develop their Medicus Pension Plan.
    • Court's Finding: The claim contained sufficient elements (existence of confidential information, conveyance in confidence, misuse causing detriment) to proceed.
  2. Fraudulent Misrepresentation:

    • Allegation: Defendants falsely assured compliance with a confidentiality agreement.
    • Court's Finding: The claim adequately pleaded the required elements (false statement, knowledge of falsity, intent to deceive, reliance, and damages).
  3. Conspiracy:

    • Allegation: Defendants conspired to misappropriate confidential information.
    • Court's Finding: Despite lacking full particulars, the nature of conspiracy allowed for limited details at the pleading stage.
  4. Unlawful Interference with Contractual Relations:

    • Allegation: Defendants interfered with third-party contracts.
    • Court's Finding: Claim was inadequately pleaded as no unlawful acts against third parties were alleged. This portion of the amendment was disallowed.
  5. Inducing Breach of Contract:

    • Allegation: Defendants caused breaches of the confidentiality agreement.
    • Court's Finding: Claim sufficiently pleaded the required elements, including awareness of and intention to breach the contract.
  6. Piercing the Corporate Veil:

    • Allegation: Corporate structures were used to shield wrongful conduct.
    • Court's Finding: Claims supported a possible future finding of improper conduct warranting veil-piercing.

Rulings

  • Motion to Strike: Dismissed. The claims (except unlawful interference) were sufficiently pleaded.
  • Motion to Amend: Granted, excluding paragraphs related to unlawful interference.
  • Costs: Awarded to the plaintiff in the amount of $26,934.23 on a partial indemnity basis.

 

Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
CV-24-00715556
Corporate & commercial law
$ 26,934
Plaintiff