Case updates
May 27, 2025
Rush Ihas Hardwick LLP is pleased to report another significant success in the British Columbia Supreme Court, where our partner Jeffrey W. Robinson obtained the complete dismissal of claims brought against our clients in Sherwood Real Estate Corporation v. Kingsnorth, 2025 BCSC 961 (full decision here).
The decision highlights two hallmarks of our litigation practice: identifying fatal legal defects in a claim against our client, and executing a strategic, efficient litigation plan to achieve early dismissal — saving our clients the costs and risks of trial.
Background: Allegations of Negligent Misrepresentation and Breach of Contract
The plaintiff, Sherwood Real Estate Corporation, brought claims of negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract arising from a failed joint venture for gravel extraction on Okanagan Indian Band lands. The core of the plaintiff’s misrepresentation claim was an email from Mr. Kingsnorth, which the plaintiff alleged induced it to invest in the venture.
The plaintiff claimed that Mr. Kingsnorth had overstated the value of gravel already on the site, and that the defendants breached terms of the Shareholders Operating Agreement (SHO) by causing the plaintiff to make further capital contributions instead of funding the company (known as, CAP) through institutional borrowing.
The Strategy: Targeting Legal Deficiencies
This was the third application brought by Mr. Robinson on behalf of the defendants, following earlier rounds in which the Court agreed that the plaintiff’s claim was defective but granted the plaintiff leave to amend.
On this application, Mr. Robinson sought summary dismissal under Rule 9-6 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, strategically focusing on two critical flaws:
- Lack of Proximity to support a duty of care in negligent misrepresentation.
- Lack of an actionable misrepresentation — the alleged statements were forward-looking estimates, not actionable statements of existing fact.
No Proximate Relationship: No Duty of Care
Justice Underhill accepted Mr. Robinson’s argument that there was no “close and direct” relationship giving rise to a duty of care.
The plaintiff had attempted to frame the relationship as one between an “industry expert” (Kingsnorth) and an unknowledgeable investor (Iadarola). But Mr. Robinson demonstrated through uncontradicted evidence that Mr. Kingsnorth had no specialized expertise in gravel valuation — he had never worked in a gravel pit prior to this venture.
The plaintiff also pointed to the fact that Mr. Kingsnorth was Mr. Iadarola’s nephew. The Court rejected this argument as well, holding that a familial relationship lacks the requisite undertaking of responsibility to create proximity for a duty of care.
No Actionable Misrepresentation
Justice Underhill also held that the alleged misrepresentation was not actionable. Although the plaintiff pointed to a statement that there was “$9–14 million of already produced product,” the Court accepted Mr. Robinson’s argument that this was, in context, part of a forward-looking projection based on numerous estimates — not a statement of existing fact.
As Justice Underhill wrote:
“[T]he impugned representations … are in substance a future forecast based on a number of variables which were not ascertainable by the defendants as of January 25, 2020. This is another basis on which the claim in negligent misrepresentation must be dismissed under Rule 9-6.”
Contract Claims Also Dismissed
The Court also dismissed all breach of contract claims. The plaintiff alleged that requiring additional shareholder contributions breached the SHO agreement. However, Mr. Robinson adduced uncontradicted evidence that:
- CAP could not borrow from institutional lenders;
- Mr. Iadarola was fully aware of this and consented to the further contributions.
With no genuine issue requiring trial, the Court dismissed the breach of contract claims in their entirety.
The Result: Full Dismissal on Summary Judgment
Ultimately, the Court found that no genuine issues remained for trial and granted summary judgment dismissing the entire action:
“Having found there is no genuine issue underlying the plaintiff’s claims in negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract, I grant summary judgment in favour of the defendants and dismiss the action in its entirety.“
A Reflection of Our Approach
This result reflects key values of Rush Ihas Hardwick LLP and of Jeffrey W. Robinson’s litigation practice:
- Precision in legal analysis: Targeting core defects in the plaintiff’s theory.
- Strategic litigation planning: Using procedural tools (here, summary judgment under Rule 9-6) to achieve efficient results.
- Technical fluency: Mr. Robinson’s background as an engineer and judicial law clerk informs a meticulous, evidence-driven approach to complex disputes.
As the first commercial litigation boutique in BC’s Interior, Rush Ihas Hardwick LLP is proud to deliver this level of representation to clients facing challenging commercial claims.