Court File No.

2007,BCSC1669
OSGOODE
SUPERIOR COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
MR. JOHN DOE
Plaintif
- and –
DINO AND DILL & DILL INC.
Defendant
FACTUM OF THE PLAINTIFF, JOHN DOE (RESPONDING PARTY)

PART 1- NATURE OF MOTION

This is motion brought by the defendant, Mr. Dino, for a dismissal of the action of the
plaintiff, (Mr. John Doe) on the basis that he didn’t provide any wrong financial
statement and promissory note. The Plaintiff opposes this motion based on
misrepresentation of the financial statements and false promissory note. The plaintiff
claims that Mr. Dino will be subjected to pay the huge loss of $250,000.
FACTS
1) In 2004, Mr Doe was looking for business in the Vancouver area for an automobile
dealership and attend several meetings with the Mr Pell because his company
owned operating business for the dealership the owner of the company, but he didn’t
informed Mr. Doe about the real financial state of the company.
2) In 2004, Mr Dino as a Charted accountant had attended various meetings with Mr
PLAINTIFF V/S DEFENDANT - Akshay Arora

DOE vs DILL – Case Study

This Case analysis is taken in the favor of the Plaintiff, Mr. John Doe.

PART 1- NATURE OF MOTION

This is motion brought by the defendant, Mr. Dino, for a dismissal of the action of the
plaintiff, (Mr. John Doe) on the basis that he didn’t provide any wrong financial statement
and promissory note. The Plaintiff opposes this motion based on misrepresentation of the
financial statements and false promissory note. The plaintiff claims that Mr. Dino will be
subjected to pay the huge loss of $250,000.

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Duty of care (page 102 of the textbook 10th edition of Contemporary Canadian Business
Law chapter 6 special Tort liabilities of Business professional topic Tort duty of care)
The wrong financial statements provided by Mr. Dino about the company are strong
evidence of fraud and duty of care because according to this law the person who claims to
be professional must be maintain the duty of proficiency in his work or exercise the duties
that the profession imposes on him or her. In this case Mr. Dino’s performance below of his
standard and breach the duty of care.
Legal Issues
Mr. John Doe has planned to purchase a company’s dealership and by this, he and Mr.
Pell along with his accountant Mr. Dino are looking forward to the deal.
The legal issues involved in the case are:
1. Mr. Pell stated that he was not good with numbers, so, Mr. Doe should consult Mr. Dino
regarding any queries. Here, Mr. Dino represents fiduciary duty toward the clients, where
he should represent all the financials without any negligence. (John A. Willes & John H.
Willes, (pp. 101), 10th Edition)

Here, Mr. Doe has performed Tort duty of care, where the professional failed to meet
the requirements and standards of the situation.

2. Mr. John said that he received the statements for 2002 and 2003 in September 2004,
and 2004 . reports on 4th November 2004, which disclosed the liability of $747,735.62 for
unpaid provisional sales tax.

If this information would have been disclosed before, Mr. John would have not made
the deposit of $250,000.

Case Theory:

In order to prove Mr. Dino’s negligence in misrepresentation, he should consider the

below factors and prove:
a. Mr. Dino (Defendant), should be held responsible for duty of care towards
Plaintiff.
b. The reports sent by Mr. Dino were misleading and false which led to Mr. Doe,
depositing the money to purchase the business.
c. Therefore, financial reports and statements, presented by Mr. Dino should be the
cause of Mr Doe’s damages which he suffered.

As a responsible accountant, Mr. Dino had a duty to be cautious of Mr. Doe, which

is essentially the basis of tort liability, and this duty of care indicates that, an individual
party must not intentionally harm the other party. And since Mr. Dino was a CPA at API
Inc., Mr. Dow was hugely relied on the reports and information forwarded by Mr.
Dino. Furthermore, API Inc. owes provincial sales tax, this fact was not disclosed by the
defendant and hence it proves that the statements & reports were false and carelessly
prepared. Mr. Doe was solely dependent on these reports and statements in his purchase
decision and therefore suffered a loss of $ 250,000 due to these statements. There were
two misrepresentations made by Mr. Dino which were false statements and secondly, oral
statements which were related to the bill.

Strength & Weakness

In the case provided, Mr. John can state the missing information of financials provided
by Mr. Dino, which led to the completion of the deal. If the financials would have been
stated clearly and with complete transparency, my client, Mr. John would not have
ended up finalizing the deal.
So, here, the latter is entitled to get $250,000 and other damages faced from Mr. Dino
and the company, due to negligent misrepresentation of Under the Tort of Duty of Care.
(John A. Willes & John H. Willes, (pp. 104), 10th Edition)
Mr. Dino can state that during the time of providing the depository amount by Mr. John, he
was not present at the moment and Mr. John was entitled to receive the promissory note
through Mr. Dino as Mr. Pell assigned him the task and he played a role of accountant to
deal in both the parties.

Strategies/Statements to overcome the Weakness:

As explained above in the strengths, it was clear that Mr. Dino was a certified accountant
for the API, so Mr. Doe would have relied on the financial statements and reporting
provided by Mr. Dino Also, as a Certified Accountant, it was his responsibility to
provide correct reports without considering the fact thet Mr. Dino was called in sales
meeting or not.