Beavis et al. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc., (2010) 258 Man.R.(2d) 15 (CA)

• Judge: Monnin, Chartier and MacInnes, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: June 15, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2010), 258 Man.R.(2d) 15 (CA);2010 MBCA 69

Beavis v. PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010), 258 Man.R.(2d) 15 (CA);

      499 W.A.C. 15

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.024

Raymond Beavis, Northern Sunshine Farms (Manitoba) Ltd., Northern Polar Express Ltd. and Casa De Fruta (1997) Ltd. (plaintiffs/appellants) v. PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. (defendant/respondent)

(AI 09-30-07287; 2010 MBCA 69)

Indexed As: Beavis et al. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Monnin, Chartier and MacInnes, JJ.A.

June 15, 2010.

Summary:

On December 21, 2006, the plaintiffs issued a statement of claim against PricewaterhouseCoopers. On January 3, 2007, the plaintiffs amended the statement of claim to change the name of the defendant to PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. The substance of the plaintiffs' claim was that the defendant provided accounting and auditing services to The Shamray Group from 1995 through 1998 and negligently prepared Shamray's financial statements. By its statement of defence, the defendant denied that it provided accounting and auditing services for Shamray and further denied any responsibility in law for PricewaterhouseCoopers, who did so. In addition, the defendant asserted that the six-year limitation period for the plaintiffs' action expired before the statement of claim was issued or amended. The defendant moved for summary judgment. A Master granted the motion. The plaintiffs appealed. The plaintiffs also applied to correct the name of the defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc., as named in the amended statement of claim, to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2009), 246 Man.R.(2d) 254, held that the defendant established on a prima facie basis that the limitation period had expired and that there was no triable issue. The court therefore dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal from the Master's order granting summary judgment in favour of the defendant. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' application to correct the name of the defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. The plaintiff appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal from the order granting summary judgment to the defendant. There was therefore no need to consider the plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their application for an order correcting the name of the defendant.

Practice - Topic 5719

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - To dismiss action - [See Practice - Topic 8825.6 ].

Practice - Topic 8825.6

Appeals - General principles - Duty of appellate court on reviewing summary judgment decisions - The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant provided accounting and auditing services to The Shamray Group from 1995 through 1998 and negligently prepared Shamray's financial statements - By its statement of defence, the defendant asserted, inter alia, that the six-year limitation period had expired before the statement of claim was issued - The defendant moved for summary judgment - A Master granted the motion - The plaintiffs appealed - The motions judge dismissed the appeal, holding that the defendant established on a prima facie basis that the limitation period had expired and that there was no triable issue - The plaintiffs appealed - The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court stated that "given that the decision as to whether the plaintiffs had met 'the burden to establish that there is a genuine issue for determination' is a discretionary one, the plaintiffs have failed to satisfy us that the motions judge misdirected himself or that his decision is wrong, let alone so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice".

Cases Noticed:

Towers Ltd. v. Quinton's Cleaners Ltd. et al. (2009), 245 Man.R.(2d) 70; 466 W.A.C. 70; 2009 MBCA 81, refd to. [para. 9].

Homestead Properties (Canada) Ltd. v. Sekhri et al. (2007), 214 Man.R.(2d) 148; 395 W.A.C. 148; 2007 MBCA 61, refd to. [para. 10].

Puolitaipale Estate et al. v. Grace General Hospital et al. (2002), 170 Man.R.(2d) 32; 285 W.A.C. 32; 2002 MBCA 147, refd to. [para. 11].

Counsel:

J.C. Prober and J.R.N. Boudreau, for the appellants;

J.G.E. Young, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 15, 2010, before Monnin, Chartier and MacInnes, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was pronounced on June 15, 2010, and the following written reasons were delivered by MacInnes, J.A., on June 21, 2010.