Kingbaker Owners Corp. v Thomson
Kingbaker Owners Corporation
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Pinnacle Trails Resort Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Emily Maria Thomson
Law Firm / Organization
Nixon Wenger LLP
Lawyer(s)

Brent Meckling

Clayton John Thomson
Law Firm / Organization
Nixon Wenger LLP
Lawyer(s)

Brent Meckling

James Frederick Andrew Judiesch
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
the Estate of James Frederick Andrew Judiesch
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
John and/or Jane Doe as representative of the Estate of James Frederick Andrew Judiesch
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
W.J. MacDonald Law Corporation, also known as MacDonald & Company
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

S. Penney

Background:
Kingbaker Owners Corporation and Pinnacle Trails Resort Inc. (plaintiffs) purchased a campground resort from Emily Maria Thomson and Clayton John Thomson (defendants). After the sale, they discovered that six RV sites and a water well were on a government-owned road allowance. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure ordered removal at the plaintiffs’ expense.

Legal Claims:
The plaintiffs alleged fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract, claiming the defendants knowingly made false statements to induce the sale, causing financial loss. The defendants denied wrongdoing, arguing the plaintiffs failed to conduct due diligence.

Third-Party Proceedings:
The defendants issued a third-party notice against W.J. MacDonald Law Corporation (MacDonald & Company), alleging their lawyer, now deceased, failed to properly advise the plaintiffs regarding property boundaries. They sought contribution and indemnity under Section 4 of the Negligence Act.

Court’s Ruling:
The court applied the rule in Adams and found the plaintiffs’ lawyer’s actions were not a proper basis for a third-party claim because any negligence was attributable to the plaintiffs. The third-party notice was struck.

Costs:
The court awarded costs in favor of W.J. MacDonald Law Corporation for defending the third-party notice and the motion to strike. However, the document did not specify the total amount of costs awarded.

Conclusion:
The court held that the defendants had no independent right to seek contribution, as the plaintiffs' lawyer’s alleged negligence was a matter of defense, not a basis for a third-party claim.

Supreme Court of British Columbia
S62962
Civil litigation
Other