The Supreme Court of B.C. has ruled that a statement of claim filed by brokerage industry veteran Russ Isaac against Guardian Capital Group, its brokerage arm, Worldsource Financial Services Inc., and two executives, is so confusing it should be struck.

Issac, who ran Great Pacific Management Co. Ltd. before it was sold to Cartier Partners Financial, is suing Guardian, Worldsource, assorted related companies and fund industry executives John Christodoulou and Harold Hillier, making a number of claims arising out of alleged contracts between him and some of the defendants to establish a securities brokerage business in B.C. The allegations against the defendants include breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, defamation, wrongful dismissal, constructive dismissal, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment.

Two of the defendants, Worldsource Securities Inc. and Worldsource Corporate Services Inc., are resident in B.C., and they applied for an order striking out the claim. They argued that the statement of claim is so confusing and that it violates the rules for proper pleadings to such an extent that they cannot properly respond to it.

The other corporate and individual defendants are based in Ontario, and they challenged the jurisdiction of the B.C. court in the case.

The court agreed with the defendants, ruling, “Mr. Isaac’s statement of claim is so confusing and so replete with problems that it should be almost totally redrafted.
While some paragraphs, such as the introductory paragraphs, are not offensive, it is a task beyond what can be expected of the court to edit it any further than I have already done. Thus, the entire statement of claim should be struck.”

However, it also grants leave to Isaac to file a new (essentially totally amended) statement of claim pursuing claims in breach of contract, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.

As for the jurisdiction issue, the court says that it is impossible to decide this issue until the claim is amended. “I will remain seized of this matter for the limited purpose of considering any further application with respect to an amended statement of claim, including the question of jurisdiction,” the judge, Mr. Justice T.J. Melnick, writes.