Two Supreme Court cases have come to my attention today. Here’s one of them.
Doerskin/Adalwolf Transportation v. Marnor/MHL was first filed in December 2014. MHL filed a counter-claim in March 2015. An April 2017 filing by MHL regarding changing lawyers is what made it pop up in my legal timeline. I would imagine that suggests that the case is slogging through the court system.
From the Plaintiff’s STATEMENT OF FACTS:
1. The Plaintiff, Adalwolf Transportation Inc., also known as Adalwolf Trking Ltd., is a company incorporated pursuant to the laws of British Columbia with an address for service c/o ROM Lawyers LLP, 33695 South Fraser Way, Abbotsford, BC, V2S 2C1.
2. The Defendant, the Marner Holdings Ltd. also known as MHL Logistics & Freight Transport, is a company incorporated pursuant to the laws of British Columbia and carries on business with a Registered and Records Office at 2900 – 550 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, V6C 0A3.
3. At all material times, the Plaintiff was the owner of a 2006 Peterbilt, Serial No. 1XP5DB9X66D650084 and a 2001 International , Serial No. 2HSCKASR81C015047 (the “Vehicles”)
4. The Plaintiff, Rudi Doerksen, was employed under a Contract dated June 18, 2010 (the “Contract”). Under the terms of the Contract, the Plaintiff agreed to furnish the Defendant with the Vehicles to be used in the course of employment by the Plaintiff.
5. At all times the ownership of the Vehicles was to remain with the Plaintiff. There was an agreement that any costs incurred with the Vehicles could be incurred by the Defendant for which they would seek compensation as a cost of doing business.
6. The Plaintiff was to be paid remuneration in the amount of 85% of gross revenue generated from each load that was delivered through the use of the Vehicles.
7. The Defendant was responsible to obtain all licences and operating authorities for the Vehicles.
8. The Defendant was to ensure the Vehicles had appropriate coverage with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, which to be taken out in the name of the Defendant.
9. The Plaintiff was at liberty to end the Contract on notice to the Defendant. Notice was provided to the Defendant on or about September 2014 and despite being provided with notice, and in breach of the Contract between the parties, the Defendant has not returned the Vehicles to the Plaintiff and has wrongly retained them in breach of contact.
10. The Plaintiff has made requests that the Vehicles be returned to him, as specified in the Contract, and in breach of the explicit terms of the Contract, the Defendant has refused, wrongly holding the Vehicles for its own use.
11. The Plaintiff has asked the Defendant that the value of the Vehicles be paid to him forthwith; however, the Defendant has not complied with any reasonable request.
12. As a result of the actions of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has lost the use of the Vehicles as required for his employment and ability to earn and income. The Plaintiff has lost income as a result of the actions of the Defendant. In addition, the Defendant wrongly withheld wages that were due and payable to the Plaintiff under the explicit terms of the Contract which were otherwise due and payable to the Plaintiff.
13. The Defendant has caused damage to the Vehicles and has diminished the value of the Vehicles from the condition that the Plaintiff delivered them to the Defendant, and as a result the Plaintiff has suffered damages.
From the Plaintiff’s RELIEF SOUGHT:
14. The Plaintiff claims the following:
a) Past and future lost wages, earning capacity and opportunity;
b) An Order that the Vehicles that have been wrongly detained be returned to the Plaintiff forthwith;
c) An Order that the Plaintiff be compensated for the full value of the Vehicles in the amount of $75,000.00;
d) An Order that the Defendant hold the Vehicles in trust for the Plaintiff; e) An Order that the Vehicles be returned to the Plaintiff forthwith;
f) Costs of an interim vehicle while the Defendant wrongly held the Vehicles;
g) General damages;
h) Special damages
i) Aggravated damages;
j) Punitive damages;
m) Special or increased costs; and
n) Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just.
The attorney is Michael Evans of RDM Lawyers LLP 33695 South Fraser Way Abbotsford, BC V2S 2C1
MHL filed a counter-claim a few months later seeking payment from Doersken. From their RELIEF SOUGHT:
1. Judgment against Doerksen in the following amounts: (a) $43,955.74; and (b) $7,584.84 in United States Dollars, or in the alternative, pursuant to the Foreign Money Claims Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 155, that amount of Canadian currency that is necessary to purchase $7,584.84 in United States Dollars from a chartered bank located in British Columbia at the close of business on the conversion date.
2. Judgment against Adalwolf Transportation Inc., also known as Adalwolf Trking Ltd., in the amount of $5,022.39.
3. Interest pursuant to the terms of the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79.
5. Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.
I will follow that case henceforth, and post the other Supreme Court case that came to light in short order.