CPAC is proudly owned by these leading companies
  • Rogers Logo
  • Shaw
  • Videotron Logo
  • Cogeco Logo
  • Eastlink Logo
  • Access Logo

A.I. Enterprises Ltd., et al. v. Bram Enterprises Ltd., et al.

   
       Loading CPAC video...    
         
   
   

| video language:    

   
   
Supreme Court Hearings

A.I. Enterprises Ltd., et al. v. Bram Enterprises Ltd., et al. (May 22, 2013)
Case # 34863

Five members of a family were involved in the ownership, directorship and management of an apartment building in Moncton, N.B. One member of the family, the appellant, managed the building for a fee. In 2000, four members representing the majority decided to sell the building. The relationship between the parties was regulated by a “syndication agreement.” The agreement provided that if the majority decided to sell, the minority would have the right to purchase the building at its appraised value. The managing member disagreed with the sale. From spring 2000 to fall 2002, the majority tried to sell the building to interested third parties without success. Following this the managing member eventually purchased the property. The other members argued the managing member breached their obligations and acted unlawfully. The other members argued the managing member committed an economic interference that caused losses so they sought damages. The trial judge found the economic tort of interfering with contractual relations by unlawful means had been established and awarded damages. Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Add new comment

Outburst promotion banner
The CPAC Digital Archive

Daily Programming Highlights


 

Latest Comments

Mak:
All this case and the police actions in this case prove is that the combined Canadian police forces are nothing more than and have no more a
oto:
The Supreme Court of Canada made the correct moral decision, regardless of case law. IBM Canada is paying Dick Waterman approximately $80K
Fredrick Owen Blacklaws:
Was the hearing simply a formality? Had the court made an, irrvocable, decision on the matter prior to the hearing?
Don Dash:
The main issue is that the threatening remarks were made in a place where it is assumed that confidentiality exist? Wasn't he in jail?