Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The court considered whether the plaintiff could amend her pleadings to clarify and add claims in a proposed class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act.

• Central issues included negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty related to financial planning and investment management.

• The sufficiency of pleadings, especially distinguishing Gregory Cameron’s roles as financial planner and as director of Chartwell Asset Management Inc., was a key focus.

• The court addressed whether the amendments introduced new causes of action outside the limitation period and whether such amendments were just and convenient.

• The role of Ultimate Designated Person (UDP) was discussed as informing the standard of care, but not as a separate cause of action.

• No damages or costs were awarded as the decision was limited to procedural amendments to pleadings.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties

Cheryl Mackenzie filed a notice of civil claim in December 2018 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against Chartwell Asset Management Inc. (CAM) and Gregory Cameron. The claim arose from Mackenzie’s and other proposed class members’ investments with CAM, which included funds such as the High Income Fund (HIF), Life Settlement Fund (LSF), and a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). Mackenzie alleged that the defendants provided financial investment services and financial planning services, misinformed her and the class about the nature of the investments, and failed to comply with their professional duties. The allegations included that Mr. Cameron managed investments through CAM and was her only contact regarding her investments.

Procedural history and amendments sought

The original notice of civil claim was filed in December 2018. In November 2022, Mackenzie filed an amended notice of civil claim (ANOCC), discontinuing against all defendants except CAM and Gregory Cameron. The court previously adjourned the plaintiff’s certification application to allow her to seek leave to further amend her pleadings. Mackenzie applied to file a further amended notice of civil claim (FANOCC) to cure deficiencies, narrow the focus of the allegations, and clarify the capacities in which Mr. Cameron was being sued. The amendments also aimed to add more specific factual details regarding the management of the investments and the roles of the defendants.

Key legal issues

The court examined whether the proposed amendments were necessary to determine the real issues in dispute, whether they introduced new causes of action outside the limitation period, and whether they caused prejudice to the defendants. The court considered whether the pleadings sufficiently distinguished between Mr. Cameron’s roles as financial planner and as director of CAM. The court found that the factual basis for claims against Mr. Cameron as a financial planner was already present in the original pleadings and that the amendments clarified and particularized these claims. The court rejected amendments that did not plead independent causes of action against Mr. Cameron as director and those that improperly pleaded evidence or legal conclusions. The court also addressed the role of Mr. Cameron as Ultimate Designated Person (UDP), concluding that while his duties as UDP could inform the standard of care, they did not form a separate cause of action without further particulars.

Outcome and disposition

The court granted leave for most of the proposed amendments, particularly those clarifying and supporting claims against Mr. Cameron in his capacity as financial planner. Leave was denied for amendments that failed to plead independent causes of action against Mr. Cameron as director, those concerning the UDP role without sufficient particulars, and those that improperly pleaded evidence from disciplinary proceedings. The court found no significant prejudice to Mr. Cameron from the amendments and determined that allowing them was just and convenient to resolve the real issues in dispute.

No damages or costs were awarded in this decision, as it was limited to the procedural issue of amending pleadings. The substantive claims remain to be determined in subsequent proceedings.