An Ontario court has rejected an advisor’s argument that a claim against him by a former firm be dismissed as coming too late.
Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice rejected a motion brought by Gregory Roscoe, asking that a claim against him by his former firm, Canaccord Capital Corp., be dismissed on the basis that it is barred by the two-year limitations period that applies to civil claims.
According to the decision dated October 19, Roscoe worked for Canaccord from 1999 to August 2008, when he left to work for another firm. In June 2011, Canaccord brought a claim against him, stemming from a settlement it reached in a claim brought against both Canaccord and Roscoe by Thomas and Kathleen Cavanagh.
The firm settled that claim for $316,816, and incurred legal fees of $66,854. Now, it is trying to collect that sum from Roscoe, claiming that he is liable to indemnify the firm for the amount it paid to settle the claim and for its legal fees.
The judge noted that the court heard evidence that it is “standard practice in the industry” that advisors must compensate the dealer for all losses resulting from client dealings, including money paid out when an unsatisfied client sues the dealer in a civil action.
The decision indicates that Roscoe argued that the claim had to be filed by August 2010 to come within the two-year limitation period, and, as it didn’t, the case must be dismissed. The firm argued that its claim comes within two years of the settlement it entered with the Cavanaghs, and so it falls within the limitation period.
The judge in the case sided with the firm, saying in the decision, “Canaccord had the right to be reimbursed by Roscoe pursuant to the employment contract when it settled the Cavanagh claim on July 31, 2010. This is the earliest date from which the limitation period could run. Canaccord commenced this action on June 8, 2011, within the applicable limitation period. The motion for summary judgment is therefore dismissed.”