Law of Torts: A. I. Enterprises Ltd. v. Bram Enterprises Case Study

This assignment is a case study analyzing the Law of Torts, focusing on the Canadian case of A. I. Enterprises Ltd. v. Bram Enterprises. The case involves issues of economic tort, specifically unlawful means, and examines the actions of Alan Schelew and A. I. Enterprises Ltd. in relation to the sale of a property owned by Joyce Avenue Apartments Ltd. The analysis covers the scenario, the damages incurred by the plaintiffs (Bram Enterprises Ltd. and Jamb Enterprises Ltd.), available defenses, and the court's decision. The assignment explores the concepts of fiduciary duty, breach of duty, and the application of tort law in commercial contexts. The document also references relevant journal articles and the case law itself, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal principles involved and the court's reasoning.

Running head: LAW OF TORTS
Law of Torts
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1LAW OF TORTS
Introduction:
It is common that tort law is a body of law that addresses various issues associated with
civil wrong and in such process, it efficiently provides remedies for civil wrongs which are not
as a result of contractual obligations (Kennedy & Sossin, 2017). In this regard, it is noteworthy
to mention here that an individual suffering from legal damages may be able to apply tort law for
the purpose of receiving adequate compensation from another person who is liable for his
injuries (Roach, 2014). It is worthwhile to refer here that from the beginning, the law torts have
been covering intentional acts and negligent acts (Cohen, 2017). Therefore, law of tort defines
those which constitutes legal injuries and thereby deals with circumstances in one individual may
held liable for the intentional or negligent acts of another.
Issue and Scenario:
The issue of a recent Canadian case can be emphasized in order to evaluate the issues
concerned with tort law. In A. I. Enterprises Ltd. v. Bram Enterprises, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 177, was
a landmark case law related to economic tort involving unlawful means. The issues concerned
with the case study is that a company named Joyce Avenue Apartments Ltd was owned by
Lilian Schelew and her sons, Jeffrey, Michael, Bernard and Alan which was hold as a possession
in a apartment building in Moncton, New Brunswick. In this case, it was observed that Lilian’s
four sons owned 80% of the Joyce Avenue Apartments Ltd which has been equally divided into
two corporate entities referred as the Bram Enterprises Ltd. and Jamb Enterprises Ltd. it was
later observed that Alan Schelew directed and owned the A.I. Enterprises Ltd and in this regard,
a syndication agreement was signed between A.I. Enterprises, Bram Enterprises Ltd. and Jamb
Enterprises Ltd. it is worth noting that the right to sale was entrusted to the investors. However,

2LAW OF TORTS
the terms depicted in the syndication agreement limited the offer to sale on the part of the
investors to a fifteen day window.
Thereafter, in 2002 both Bram Enterprises Ltd. and Jamb Enterprises Ltd wanted to sell
the property which was valued at $2.2 million however; the purchase was declined by A.I
Enterprises and Alan Schelew. In an attempt to sell the property to multiple buyers they were
unsuccessful however after 2 years, A.I Enterprises purchased the property at for an amount of
$2.2 million.
Therefore, in the present scenario, both Bram Enterprises Ltd. and Jamb Enterprises Ltd
sued A.I Enterprises for causing damage or loss by unlawful means. According to them Alan had
fraudulently and unlawfully interfered with the economic relations which were settled between
them. In their alleged statement, they concluded the fact that as a result of the intervention of A.I
Enterprises and Alan Schelew, the period of sale was delayed considerably and has been finally
sold at a lesser price.
Damages, defenses and remedies:
In this case, the damages incurred by the plaintiff are monetary. As a result of intentional
tort on the part of A.I Enterprises and Alan Schelew and as a result of which there has been delay
in the sale of the apartment. The apartment was sold at a considerable lesser price however; the
plaintiffs could have sold it at a considerable higher price to the third parties. The defenses
available to the defendant were that his role for the company was not fiduciary. It was stated by
the plaintiffs that Alan had a fiduciary duty and he has breached such duty. According to the
plaintiffs, Alan has also breached his duty as a joint director of the concerned corporate
enterprises. Therefore, it was observed that though A.I Enterprises was not fiduciary, Alan was

3LAW OF TORTS
the sole director and shareholder and therefore may not be held liable for the breach of fiduciary
duty.
Court decision:
In this case, it was held by the Court of Appeal that no civil wrong was committed in
which regard, actions will be taken by the third party against Alan Schelew and A.I Enterprises.
Therefore, it was decided by the Court of Appeal that both A.I Enterprises and Alan Schelew
cannot be held liable towards Bram Enterprises Ltd. and Jamb Enterprises Ltd based on the
concept of unlawful means of tort. However, the trial judge made a strong opinion regarding the
fact that Alan being a director of the family companies has breached his fiduciary duty.
Therefore, it can be opined that the decision of the Court o Appeal in this case was appropriate.

4LAW OF TORTS
References:
Case:
A. I. Enterprises Ltd. v. Bram Enterprises, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 177.
Journals:
Cohen, M. (2017). International human rights norms and maternal tort immunity in Canada:
connecting the dots. The International Journal of Human Rights, 21(6), 655-671.
Kennedy, G. J., & Sossin, L. (2017). Justiciability, Access to Justice and the Development of
Constitutional Law in Canada. Fed. L. Rev., 45, 707.
Roach, K. (2014). Blaming the victim: Canadian law, causation, and residential
schools. University of Toronto Law Journal, 64(4), 566-595.