Warner v. Nova Scotia Textiles Ltd. et al., (2008) 262 N.S.R.(2d) 82 (SC)

• Judge: Davison, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: November 07, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2008), 262 N.S.R.(2d) 82 (SC);2008 NSSC 17

Warner v. N.S. Textiles Ltd. (2008), 262 N.S.R.(2d) 82 (SC);

    839 A.P.R. 82

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.014

Beatrice A. Warner (plaintiff) v. Nova Scotia Textiles Limited and J. Edward MacDonald (defendants)

(SK-256630; 2008 NSSC 17)

Indexed As: Warner v. Nova Scotia Textiles Ltd. et al.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Davison, J.

January 22, 2008.

Summary:

An application was brought to strike the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, MacDonald, on the basis that neither the claim for breach of fiduciary duty nor the claim for an oppression remedy disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court granted the application.

Company Law - Topic 4591

Officers and agents - Liability to employees - General - [See Company Law - Topic 9783 ].

Company Law - Topic 9783

Actions against corporations and directors - Action for oppressive conduct - Persons entitled - The plaintiff was employed by the corporate defendant - The defendant, MacDonald, was the majority shareholder and president of the corporate defendant - The corporate defendant's assets were sold and notice was given that it would close permanently - The plaintiff brought an action against the corporate defendant and MacDonald - With respect to MacDonald, the plaintiff alleged breach of fiduciary duty and claimed an oppression remedy - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court struck the plaintiff's claim against MacDonald on the basis that neither the claim for breach of fiduciary duty nor the claim for an oppression remedy disclosed a reasonable cause of action - There was no fiduciary relationship between MacDonald and the plaintiff - MacDonald, as Chief Officer and majority shareholder of the corporate defendant, was obliged to act in the best interests of the shareholders - It could not be said that he had a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the employees - Further, the oppression remedy did not provide a remedy for employees - The plaintiff was not a "proper person" to make the application under the Companies Act.

Equity - Topic 3607

Fiduciary or confidential relationships - General principles - Relationships which are not fiduciary - [See Company Law - Topic 9783 ].

Cases Noticed:

American Home Assurance Co. et al. v. Brett Pontiac Buick GMC Ltd. et al. (1992), 116 N.S.R.(2d) 319; 320 A.P.R. 319 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Amherst Central Charge Ltd. et al. v. County of Cumberland et al. (1980), 40 N.S.R.(2d) 587; 73 A.P.R. 587 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 14].

Vladi Private Islands Ltd. v. Haase et al. (1990), 96 N.S.R.(2d) 323; 253 A.P.R. 323 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 15].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Trophy Foods Inc. v. Scott et al. (1995), 140 N.S.R.(2d) 92; 399 A.P.R. 92 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84, refd to. [para. 19].

Barrett v. Reynolds et al. (1998), 170 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 515 A.P.R. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

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. 22].

MacQueen et al. v. Ispat Sidbec Inc. et al. (2007), 253 N.S.R.(2d) 188; 807 A.P.R. 188; 2007 NSCA 33, refd to. [para. 23].

Clitheroe v. Hydro One Inc. et al., [2002] O.T.C. Uned. 901 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35].

Joncas et al. v. Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co. et al., [2000] O.T.C. 339 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 37].

Joncas et al. v. Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co. et al. (2001), 114 O.A.C. 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Harbert Distressed Investment Master Fund Ltd. et al. v. Calpine Canada Energy Finance II ULC et al. (2005), 235 N.S.R.(2d) 297; 747 A.P.R. 297; 2005 NSSC 211, refd to. [para. 39].

Counsel:

Randall P.H. Balcome, for the plaintiff;

G. Grant Machum and Mark Tector, for the defendants.

This application was heard on November 7, 2007, in Chambers, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, before Davison, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on January 22, 2008.