Rule 13.04 – Summary judgment on evidence
The respondent, Jumelet, was the plaintiff's officer, director and employee. Appointed by the company's owner, he was second-in-command. He took a position with a competitor. The plaintiff claimed he breached his duties of good faith and fiduciary duties to the company and moved for summary judgment on the evidence on the question of his liability. Held, motion granted. According to the evidence, Jumelet breached his fiduciary duties three times by lending assistance and giving confidential information to a potential competitor while still the plaintiff's second-in-command. None of the impugned activities are in dispute and so there are no material facts requiring trial. As an officer and director, he clearly had a duty to act in the plaintiff's best interests and he failed to do so. The court rejected Jumelet's argument that he was only a fiduciary in a 'purely technical sense' because he held the position at the pleasure and will of the company's owner. The court rejected Jumelet's other proposed defences without separately canvassing each of them.