COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Houweling Nurseries Ltd. v. Houweling, 2004 BCCA 172 Between: Date: 20040316 Docket: CA029616 Houweling Nurseries Ltd., NHL Bradner Nurseries Ltd., and Houweling Nurseries Oxnard Inc. Abraham Paulus Houweling aka Paul Houweling Douglas Graham and Glen Harry Grant Thornton LLP Amethyst Greenhouses Ltd., Amethyst Farms Ltd. and Paul Houweling Plaintiffs (Respondents) Defendant (Appellant) Third Parties (Respondents) Plaintiff (Respondent) Defendants (Appellants) Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Donald The Honourable Mr. Justice Hall The Honourable Mr. Justice Low Oral Reasons for Judgment
Houweling Nurseries Ltd. v. Houweling Page 2 Paul Houweling appearing in person for the Appellants D.B. Wende Place and Date: Counsel for the Respondents D. Graham, G. Harry and G. Thornton LLP Vancouver, British Columbia 16 March 2004
Houweling Nurseries Ltd. v. Houweling Page 3 [1] HALL, J.A.: The appellants appeal from an order made by Mr. Justice Catliff on March 6, 2002 and entered March 19, 2002 ordering the appellant, Amethyst Farms Ltd., to pay accounting invoices rendered by the respondent, Grant Thornton LLP. [2] The background is that Grant Thornton, an accounting firm, and members of the firm including Mr. Graham and Mr. Harry, had been retained by the appellants to do certain accounting work relative to matters relating to what is sometimes called the de-merger of the Houweling group of companies of which Mr. Paul Houweling was a member. Those events relating to the break-up of the organization and the separation of the business as occurred in or around 1997. The events that underlie this lawsuit and relate to the retainer entered into between the appellants and the accounting firm respondent occurred in approximately 1999. [3] In his judgment, Mr. Justice Catliff dealt with two matters. One was the claim by the plaintiff in the proceedings, Grant Thornton LLP against the defendantsappellants. Their claim was in debt for accounts that they had rendered to the company for professional services. The other subject that Mr. Justice Catliff dealt with was a
Houweling Nurseries Ltd. v. Houweling Page 4 counter-claim that had been filed against the accounting firm and two principals of the firm, Mr. Graham and Mr. Harry. [4] The core reasoning of his Lordship is found at paras. 7 and 11 relating to the counter-claims where he said this: [7] There is nothing to substantiate or to detail any claim against Grant Thornton in the counterclaim or third-party notice. The claims against the other defendants by counterclaim have previously been dealt with in this court. Having heard what I have heard in the last hour and a half or so, it seems to me plain that the claims against Doug Graham, who I think is the actual defendant by counterclaim in action C990235, must be dismissed for reasons similar to those expressed in this court when the claims against other defendants by counterclaim were dismissed.... [11] It seems to me that under both Rule 18 and Rule 18A, I must grant judgment to the plaintiff as requested, together with interest as set out in the draft order. Glenn Harry, I see is also noted as a defendant, and I dismiss the counterclaim too, and the third-party notice regarding him. [5] With respect to the claim advanced by the plaintiffrespondent, Grant Thornton LLP, his Lordship concluded as follows at para. 10. [10] However, nothing that he has said, certainly no material that has been filed as far as I've been able to see today has demonstrated any meritorious defence to the claim by the accounting firm for their fees for services rendered. They seem to have done their very best to advise Mr. Houweling on the matters that they were retained to advise him, as set out in their retainer letters.
Houweling Nurseries Ltd. v. Houweling Page 5 [6] The effect of the judgment given by Mr. Catliff on March 6, 2002 was that he granted judgment to the plaintiff, respondent in this Court, Grant Thornton LLP, for the amounts sought in their accounts that they had rendered and that they were claiming for against the defendants, appellants in this Court. With respect to the counter-claims that were advanced by the appellants he disposed of those by finding that there was no basis advanced that would underpin the validity of those counter-claims and he dismissed them all. [7] We have today heard argument from Mr. Houweling with respect to many matters, including a considerable amount of background about the underlying transactions that relate to this matter. It appears to me that nothing has been demonstrated here today that could lead us to conclude that there was any palpable or overriding error in any of the conclusions or orders of Mr. Justice Catliff. It seems to me that in those circumstances the proper order is that the appeal of the appellants ought to stand dismissed. The rule normally is that costs would follow the event and so costs should follow the event. [8] The relief sought in the factum of the respondent included the affirmation of the judgment, which is the same as the dismissal of the appeal, and directing that certain monies
Houweling Nurseries Ltd. v. Houweling Page 6 that had been paid into court by the appellants as security for costs be paid out following assessment of the respondent Grant Thornton's Supreme Court and Court of Appeal bills of costs in this way: firstly that the amount found due and owing would be paid to Grant Thornton LLP from that sum, and the balance, if any, paid to the appellant Mr. Paul Houweling. It seems to me that that order is an appropriate one and it is one that should go. [9] The only other matter that I think would be appropriate would be that in the circumstances of this case, it is appropriate that any approval Mr. Houweling or a representative of Amethyst as to reform of any orders required in connection with the appeal by could be dispensed with. A copy of any entered order should be sent in due course to Mr. Houweling and Amethyst. [10] It appears to me this that deals with all of the matters that are before us on this appeal and I would therefore make orders in the terms that I have set forth above. [11] DONALD, J.A.: I agree. [12] LOW, J.A.: I agree.
Houweling Nurseries Ltd. v. Houweling Page 7 [13] DONALD, J.A.: The appeal is dismissed and there will be an order in the terms indicated by Mr. Justice Hall. The Honourable Mr. Justice Hall