Alers-Hankey v. Solomon et al., 2006 BCCA 224

• Judge: Ryan, Huddart and Saunders, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: November 03, 2005
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2006 BCCA 224;(2006), 226 B.C.A.C. 129 (CA)

Alers-Hankey v. Solomon (2006), 226 B.C.A.C. 129 (CA);

    373 W.A.C. 129

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.031

Tony Alers-Hankey (appellant/plaintiff) v. Graeme Francis Teixeira and Justin Gems Inc. (respondents/defendants)

(CA032437; 2006 BCCA 224)

Indexed As: Alers-Hankey v. Solomon et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Ryan, Huddart and Saunders, JJ.A.

May 5, 2006.

Summary:

At issue in this case was the measure of equitable damages arising from a constructive trust imposed on the defendant Justin Gems Inc., and its shareholder, director and officer, Teixeira, for being an accessory to a breach of trust that amounted to conversion.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported [2004] B.C.T.C. Uned. 647, assessed damages accordingly. The plaintiff appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set out how damages should be calculated.

Damages - Topic 4008

Interference with economic relations - Breach of fiduciary or confidential relationship - Breach of trust (incl. liability of third parties or accessories) - General - At issue in this case was the measure of equitable damages arising from a constructive trust imposed on the defendant Justin Gems Inc., and its shareholder, director and officer, Teixeira, for being an accessory to a breach of trust that amounted to conversion (i.e., the defendants were liable as strangers in knowing receipt who knowingly assisted others in breaching fiduciary duties) - The trial judge assessed damages accordingly - The plaintiff appealed - The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and discussed the assessment of equitable damages in this type of case - The court stated that the fundamental question was what, in dollar terms, did the misappropriation of his property cost the plaintiff - The court stated that the answer to this question inevitably involved a large element of judgment - It should be a fair assessment of damages, not a mathematical accounting for breach of trust - The plaintiff was entitled to be restored to the position he would have been in had his trust not been betrayed by the defendants.

Equity - Topic 3652

Fiduciary or confidential relationships - Breach of fiduciary relationship - Liability of third parties or accessories (incl. doctrines of knowing receipt or assistance) - [See Damages - Topic 4008 ].

Trusts - Topic 6153

The trustee - Breach of trust - Liability of stranger to trust - [See Damages - Topic 4008 ].

Trusts - Topic 6155

The trustee - Breach of trust - Remedies - Damages - [See Damages - Topic 4008 ].

Cases Noticed:

Citadel General Life Assurance Co. et al. v. Lloyd's Bank of Canada et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 805; 219 N.R. 323; 206 A.R. 321; 156 W.A.C. 321; 152 D.L.R.(4th) 411, refd to. [para. 15].

International Corona Resources Ltd. v. LAC Minerals Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574; 101 N.R. 239; 36 O.A.C. 57; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 14, refd to. [para. 16].

3464920 Canada Inc. v. Strother et al. (2005), 208 B.C.A.C. 39; 344 W.A.C. 39; 38 B.C.L.R.(4th) 159; 2005 BCCA 35, refd to. [para. 16].

Cadbury Schweppes Inc. et al. v. FBI Foods Ltd. et al., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 142; 235 N.R. 30; 117 B.C.A.C. 161; 191 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 16].

Air Canada v. M & L Travel Ltd., Martin and Valliant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 787; 159 N.R. 1; 67 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

Soulos v. Korkontzilas et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 217; 212 N.R. 1; 100 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 25].

Waxman et al. v. Waxman et al. (2004), 186 O.A.C. 201 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2005), 339 N.R. 200; 207 O.A.C. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Hodgkinson v. Simms et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 377; 171 N.R. 245; 49 B.C.A.C. 1; 80 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 28].

Sorrel 1985 Limited Partnership et al. v. Sorrel Resources Ltd. et al., [2001] 1 W.W.R. 93; 277 A.R. 1; 242 W.A.C. 1; 2000 ABCA 256, refd to. [para. 29].

Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn. Bhd. v. Tan, [1995] 2 A.C. 378; 185 N.R. 136 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 31].

Warman International Ltd. v. Dwyer (1995), 128 A.L.R. 201 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Canson Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. Boughton & Co. et al., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 534; 131 N.R. 321; 6 B.C.A.C. 1; 13 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 35].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Birks, Peter B.H., An Introduction to the Law of Restitution (1988), p. 26 [para. 40].

McCamus, John D., Remedies for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, L.S.U.C. Special Lectures (1990), p. 60 [para. 40].

Counsel:

M.J. Hargreaves and K.R. Doerksen, for the appellant;

G. Plottel, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on November 3, 2005, in Victoria, British Columbia, by Ryan, Huddart and Saunders, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Huddart, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court on May 5, 2006.