Mraiche Investment Corp. v. McLennan Ross LLP et al., 2012 ABCA 95

• Judge: Ritter, Martin and Watson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: January 31, 2012
• Citations: 2012 ABCA 95;(2012), 524 A.R. 151

Mraiche Inv. Corp. v. McLennan Ross (2012), 524 A.R. 151; 545 W.A.C. 151 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. MR.137

Mraiche Investment Corporation (appellant/plaintiff) v. McLennan Ross LLP (respondent/defendant) and Gurbachan S. Paul, Harjit Neeta Paul, 1396619 Alberta Ltd., Diamond Apartment Laundry Ltd., Robert G. Kent and Robert G. Kent Professional Corporation and John Doe (not a party to the Appeal/defendants)

(1103-0115-AC; 2012 ABCA 95)

Indexed As: Mraiche Investment Corp. v. McLennan Ross LLP et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Ritter, Martin and Watson, JJ.A.

March 20, 2012.

Summary:

A defendant applied under Rule 7.3(1) of the Rules of Court (Alta.) for an order summarily dismissing all claims against it.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 511 A.R. 268, allowed the application. The plaintiff appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Practice - Topic 5719

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - To dismiss action - The plaintiff brought an action against a number of defendants relating to a number of commercial real estate transactions - The plaintiff asserted that the defendant Paul engaged in a fraudulent scheme and that the defendant law firm, from the information available, knew or ought to have known that the conveyances were being undertaken for an improper purpose - The plaintiff pled the tort of civil conspiracy - The defendant law firm applied under Rule 7.3(1) of the Rules of Court (Alta.) for an order summarily dismissing all claims against it - The chambers judge allowed the application - Knowledge of the conspiracy was an essential element in fixing any party with liability for tortious conspiracy - There was no evidence that the defendant law firm had any knowledge of the defendant Paul's fraudulent scheme - The claim of fraud against the defendant law firm was purely speculative and had no chance of success - There was no merit to the claim and in accordance with the case law, the claim against it should be weeded out - The Alberta Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the action against the defendant law firm - The chambers judge correctly concluded that there was no evidence of the requisite elements of the alleged conspiracy.

Torts - Topic 5703

Conspiracy - General - Elements - [See Practice - Topic 5719 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd. et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452; 47 N.R. 191, refd to. [para. 4].

Lonrho Ltd. v. Shell Petroleum Co., [1982] A.C. 173; [1981] 2 All. E.R. 456, refd to. [para. 4].

Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2006), 404 A.R. 349; 394 W.A.C. 349; 2006 ABCA 392; 2007 ABCA 180, affd. [2008] 1 S.C.R. 372; 372 N.R. 239; 429 A.R. 26; 421 W.A.C. 26; 2008 SCC 14, refd to. [paras. 11, 25].

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 45; 419 N.R. 1; 308 B.C.A.C. 1; 521 B.C.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 11].

Murphy Oil Co. et al. v. Predator Corp. et al. (2006), 384 A.R. 251; 367 W.A.C. 251; 2006 ABCA 69, refd to. [para. 31].

Wolfert et al. v. Shuchuk et al., [2003] A.R. Uned. 157; 15 Alta. L.R.(4th) 5; 2003 ABCA 109, refd to. [para. 31].

Chevron Canada Resources et al. v. Canada et al. (2009), 457 A.R. 132; 457 W.A.C. 132; 2009 ABCA 180, refd to. [para. 31].

Milavsky v. Milavsky et al. (2011), 513 A.R. 282; 530 W.A.C. 282; 2011 ABCA 231, refd to. [para. 31].

Desoto Resources Ltd. v. Encana Corp. et al. (2011), 513 A.R. 72; 530 W.A.C. 72; 44 Alta. L.R.(5th) 5; 2011 ABCA 100, refd to. [para. 31].

Reece et al. v. Edmonton (City) (2011), 513 A.R. 199; 530 W.A.C. 199; 2011 ABCA 238, refd to. [para. 31].

Gayton v. Lacasse (2010), 482 A.R. 179; 490 W.A.C. 179; 2010 ABCA 123, refd to. [para. 31].

DataNet Information Systems Inc. et al. v. Belzil et al. (2010), 485 A.R. 301; 2010 ABQB 72, refd to. [para. 36].

Martel v. Andrew - see Martel v. Spitz et al.

Martel v. Spitz et al., [2005] A.R. Uned. 22; 40 Alta. L.R.(4th) 199; 2005 ABCA 63, leave to appeal denied (2005), 346 N.R. 196 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

Bank of Montreal v. Tortora et al. (2010), 287 B.C.A.C. 14; 485 W.A.C. 14; 2010 BCCA 139, refd to. [para. 38].

Waters v. Michie (2011), 309 B.C.A.C. 305; 523 W.A.C. 305; 2011 BCCA 364, refd to. [para. 39].

Can-Dive Services Ltd. et al. v. Pacific Coast Energy Corp. et al. (1993), 28 B.C.A.C. 157; 47 W.A.C. 157; 96 B.C.L.R.(2d) 156; 26 C.P.C.(3d) 395 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Soleil Hospitality Inc. v. Louie et al. (2011), 308 B.C.A.C. 122; 521 W.A.C. 122; 2011 BCCA 305, refd to. [para. 41].

Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al. (2011), 304 B.C.A.C. 90; 513 W.A.C. 90; 331 D.L.R.(4th) 671; 2011 BCCA 186, refd to. [para. 40].

Sun-Rype Products Ltd. et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. et al. (2011), 305 B.C.A.C. 55; 515 W.A.C. 55; 331 D.L.R.(4th) 631; 2011 BCCA 187, leave to appeal granted (2011), 430 N.R. 392; 318 B.C.A.C. 319; 541 W.A.C. 319 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

Capital Estate Planning Corp. v. Lynch et al. (2011), 510 A.R. 244; 527 W.A.C. 244; 2011 ABCA 224, refd to. [para. 42].

Maguire v. Calgary (City) (1983), 43 A.R. 268; 1983 ABCA 121, refd to. [para. 43].

Counsel:

D.M. Hawreluk and A.L. Archer, for the appellant;

R.B. Drewry, Q.C., and N.D. Tymchuk, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 31, 2012, by Ritter, Martin and Watson, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on March 20, 2012.