COMM 393 Chapter Notes - Chapter Case: Nova Scotia Supreme Court, No. 570 Squadron Raf, Punitive Damages
COMM 393 Universal Property Management Ltd. v. Westmount Windows and Doors Ltd. Case Briefs
[1996] N.S.J. No. 570
Nova Scotia Supreme Court
December 10, 1996
Facts
• The defendant, Copeland, owed 50% of the common shares and was vice-president of the corporate
defendant Westmount. On February 13, 1996, Westmount was petitioned into bankruptcy
• Centennial Management Ltd. is a property management company to whom Westmount had provided
product and service. Centennial had owed a debt to Westmount in the amount of $20,154.46, plus
interest.
• On June 27, 1995, the plaintiff, in error, sent a cheques to Westmount in the amount of $30,635.41 which
as redited to Ceteial’s idetedess to Westout, ad deposited ito Westout’s general bank
account when they believed it was payment for a debt owed by Centennial.
• On July 11, 1995, the president of Universal telephoned Copeland, advised of the error, and demanded
repayment. Copeland refused, and on July 27, 1995, the action was commenced for a return of the fends
and for exemplary or punitive damages against Copeland.
• Westmount had trouble collecting from Centennial. Copeland had attended the offices of Centennial to
discuss payment, and the president had assured Copeland about the repayment. Universal had taken over
several contracts and services from Centennial and Copeland and Uiersal’s presidet met to discuss the
debt.
o Uiersal offered to pay $, i full satisfatio of Ceteial’s det to Westout ad
offered to do business with Westmount, paying $10,000 upfront if accepted. Copeland refused.
• Copeland was not satisfied that the erroneous cheque was payment meant for another Westmount
company, even though their invoices added up to the exact amount of that in the cheques.
Issues
• Is the plaintiff entitled to judgment against Westmount for the amount paid?
• Is the plaintiff entitled to judgment against Copeland personally for the same amount as part of or
together with exemplary or punitive damages?
Reasons
There was no debt owing by Universal to Westmount and it was only sent to Westmount through a clerical error
The plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Westmount for the amount of $30,635.41.
The court must consider whether there are circumstances here are sufficient to warrant the piercing of
Westout’s orporate eil i order to fid Copelad persoally resposile. (Westmount is now bankrupt).
The plaitiff suits that Copelad’s odut i refusig to return the funds was unconscionable, improper,
reckless, reprehensible, unethical, and morally wrong.
Law: Wolfson v. Corkum [1996] N.S.J. No. 391 S.H.
• the ourt strogly suspeted that the defedat ke of the plaitiff’s error, ad ordered reimbursement
• the fuds ere used for the defedat’s persoal uses ad the defedat had persoally guarateed
repayment of the loan
The court, however, will not pierce the corporate veil based solely on mistake and unjust enrichment.
• the funds in this ase ere used for orporate purposes, ad ot for Copelad’s persoal eefit
• Copeland was also injecting his own funds into the later stages of the company
• Copeland was not unjustly enriched
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
The defendant, copeland, owed 50% of the common shares and was vice-president of the corporate defendant westmount. On february 13, 1996, westmount was petitioned into bankruptcy. Centennial management ltd. is a property management company to whom westmount had provided product and service. Copeland refused, and on july 27, 1995, the action was commenced for a return of the fends and for exemplary or punitive damages against copeland: westmount had trouble collecting from centennial. Copeland had attended the offices of centennial to discuss payment, and the president had assured copeland about the repayment. Copeland was not satisfied that the erroneous cheque was payment meant for another westmount company, even though their invoices added up to the exact amount of that in the cheques. There was no debt owing by universal to westmount and it was only sent to westmount through a clerical error. The plaintiff is entitled to judgment against westmount for the amount of ,635. 41.
