Cases and Discussion Questions

1.Bateman v. Steed,2014 SKPC 81 (CanLII)

Bateman purchased the Steeds' home, but abandoned it six months after taking possession. She asked for return of the deposit she had paid because of misrepresentations made by the Steeds and their realtor, Swartz. Bateman claimed that there were windows that didn't open, sagging floors, a leaking roof, and mould. The Property Condition Disclosure Statement indicated that the Steeds were unaware of any roof leaks or moisture or water problems. This was not true and the Court held that it was negligent misrepresentation of material facts. Swartz represented both the Steeds and Bateman. The Limited Dual Agency Acknowledgement Form required Swartz to "disclose to the Buyer all material defects about the physical condition of the property known to her." She advised Bateman to have a home inspection, but told her that the roof did not leak and did not mention the presence of water stains.

If Swartz was aware of the leaking roof and moisture problems, should she be held liable for some or all of the damages suffered by Bateman? Should Bateman bear some of her losses because of contributory negligence, since she did not view the house or have it inspected prior to taking possession?

2.Moores v. Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union,2017 NLCA 38 (CanLII)

The Union represented fishing licence holders in negotiations for financial compensation for permanent loss of access to a fishing area. The fishers signed consent forms with the Union, authorizing it to conduct the negotiations and confirming that they would accept any negotiated agreement. Union representatives were to consult with the fishers during the negotiations. The Union did not consult with the fishers and did not inform them of three settlement proposals that it received. The fishers were notified a compensation agreement had been negotiated in a Union press release. In fact, this agreement had been negotiated prior to the signing of the consent forms. The fishers were not satisfied with the agreement and sued the Union, claiming a breach of fiduciary duty.

Did the Union owe a fiduciary duty to the fishers? If so, did it breach its duty? Was the signing of the consent forms ratification of the agreement negotiated by the Union?

3.Rivermist Holding Ltd. v. McGregor Estate,2012 BCSC 1645 (CanLII)

Rivermist hired McGregor Management to construct a storage facility. McGregor Management then hired Rivermist as a subcontractor for some excavation work. Allan McGregor negotiated both contracts on behalf of McGregor Management. McGregor Management failed to pay $75 780 of the balance owed to Rivermist. Allan then claimed that the estate of his mother was liable for the second contract, as he and his brother were agents for his mother's business, McGregor Management. Rivermist was unaware of the mother's involvement in the McGregor Management; all of its dealings were with the McGregor brothers.

Are the McGregor brothers personally liable for the debt? Explain your answer.

4.Tremblett v. Tremblett,2012 CanLII 67443 (NL SCTD) (CanLII)

[Note: Your instructor may assign this case as a Shared Writing activity.]

Doug and Bill Tremblett were brothers and, at least in the early stages, owned a fishing boat together. The brothers worked together in the fishing operation from 1988 to 2004, using a crab licence that Bill had acquired through a swap and that was held in his name. The crab fishing licence was the primary asset of the business and the main subject matter of the dispute. After the brothers stopped working together, Bill continued on with the fishing enterprise, relying on the crab licence he had obtained.

Explain any claim Doug might have against Bill in this situation. Would it affect your answer if Bill did more work than Doug? If the value of the licence was over $800000 at the time they stopped fishing together, what would Doug be entitled to if successful, given that the trial took place in 2012?

5.Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLP,2017 ONCA 292 (CanLII)

Ludwig, a chartered accountant, was a partner of BDO for 22 years. The partnership agreement provided that the policy board could force the resignation of a partner if it determined that it was not in the best interests of BDO for the partner to remain with the firm. In fact, the CEO made the decision to force Ludwig's retirement and the policy board did not consider whether Ludwig's retirement was in the best interests of the partnership. The Court awarded Ludwig $1.3 million in damages, including $100 000 in aggravated damages for the harm to Ludwig's reputation caused by his expulsion form the partnership. ThePartnership Actconfirmed that the common law applicable to partnerships continued in force after the passage of the legislation.

Which part of the common law of partnership did the Court rely upon in reaching its decision?