Client Update: Torts: Unlawful Interference with Economic Relations
In a decision released by the Supreme Court of Canada (“the Court”) on January 31, 2014, the Court clarified the law with respect to the tort of interference with economic relations by unlawful means.
Joyce, a corporation, owned an apartment building in Moncton, New Brunswick. Corporate entities Bram and Jamb together owned a majority of Joyce while a minority interest was held by corporation A.I., whose owner and sole director was Alan Schelew. A syndication agreement between Joyce, Bram, Jamb and A.I. contained a sale mechanism giving a majority of investors the right to sell the building subject to a right of first refusal of any dissenting investor to purchase it at a professionally appraised value. In 2000, Bram and Jamb wanted to sell the property but A.I. and Alan did not. Notice was given to A.I. under the syndication agreement and the building was appraised at $2.2 million. A.I. did not purchase the property and thus it was listed for sale. While the property was listed, A.I. and Alan attempted to invoke the arbitration process under the syndication agreement, filed encumbrances against the property, and denied entry to the property to prospective buyers. Potential sale to third party purchaser for $2.58 million failed, and A.I. ultimately bought the building for the appraised value of $2.2 million.
Subsequently, Bram and Jamb brought an action against A.I. and Alan claiming that, as a result of A.I. and Alan’s wrongful conduct, the sale had been substantially delayed and was for less money than they could have obtained from a third party purchaser.
In summary, the issues and conclusions are as follows:
What is the scope of liability for the tort of causing loss by unlawful means?
The Supreme Court ruled the tort should be kept within narrow bounds. It will be available in three party situations in which the defendant commits an unlawful act against a third party and that act intentionally causes economic harm to the plaintiff.
What sorts of conduct are considered “unlawful” for the purposes of this tort?
Conduct is unlawful if it would be actionable by the third party or would have been actionable if the third party had suffered loss as a result of it. In this case, the Court ruled on the evidence A.I. and Alan had not committed the tort.
If the unlawful means tort is not available, are A.I. and Alan otherwise liable?
The trial judge made strong findings that the dissenting family member, Alan Schelew, breached his fiduciary obligations as a director of the family companies and the trial judge’s award should be upheld on that basis.
The respondents submitted that if Alan Schelew breached his fiduciary duty and these breaches were sufficient for the trial judge to have issued judgment on that basis, then it was open to the Supreme Court to affirm the judgment against Alan Schelew on that basis.
What this case means for you?
Although the tort does not prevent fair competition amongst business people, no business person can use unlawful means intended to harm the business interest of another person by causing an actionable harm to a third party with whom the innocent business person is dealing. Moreover, the decision affirms the well–established principle that no director of a business can ignore or breach the obligations owed to that company to act in good faith and in the best interests of that company at all times.
Charles LeBlond, QC, assisted by Josie Marks of our Moncton office successfully represented the respondents. They were assisted by Ottawa agents Eugene Meehan and Marie-France Major of Supreme Advocacy.
By Christine Pound, ICD.D, Rebecca Saturley, & Daniel Roth Canada’s anti-modern slavery legislation comes into force on January 1, 2024. To prepare for the first reporting deadline on May 31, 2024, organizations need to determine…Read More
By Brian Johnston, K.C. and Richard Jordan On November 9, 2023, Minister of Labour, Seamus O’Regan, introduced Bill C-58 in the House of Commons to amend the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of…Read More
By Kevin Landry & Eryka Gregory The Retail Payment Activities Regulations (“Regulations”) under the Retail Payment Activities Act (“RPAA”) were finalized and published in the Canada Gazette Part II on November 23, 2023. The RPAA was…Read More
By Kevin Landry On November 9 2023, Bill C-365, An Act respecting the implementation of a consumer-led banking system for Canadians (“C-365”), short titled as the ‘Consumer-led Banking Act’ was read in the House of…Read More
By Jennifer Taylor The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (“NSCA”) has issued an important decision clarifying the test to disallow a limitations defence. The decision, Halifax (Regional Municipality) v Carvery (“Carvery”), has real implications for personal…Read More
By Deanne MacLeod, K.C., Burtley Francis & David Slipp On September 21, 2023, the Federal Government introduced Bill C-56: An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act (“Bill C-56”), with the…Read More
By Nancy Rubin, K.C. and Lauren Agnew The long-awaited Green Choice Program Regulations (N.S. Reg. 155/2023) were released by the provincial government on September 8, 2023, offering some clarity into the practical implementation of Nova…Read More
By Koren Thomson, John Samms, and Matthew Raske The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal has held that the Information and Privacy Commissioner for this province (the “Commissioner”) does not have the authority to order…Read More
By Perlene Morrison, K.C. Municipalities are required to pass code of conduct bylaws in accordance with section 107 of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). Subsection 107(1) of the MGA specifically states that a municipality’s…Read More
By Sheila Mecking and Kathleen Starke On August 23, 2023, the Ontario Superior Court (“ONSC”) upheld a complaints decision which ordered a psychologist to complete a continuing education or remedial program regarding professionalism in public…Read More