The Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba has struck a wrongful dismissal claim brought as part of a broader family dispute over land and corporate ownership, ruling that the amended counterclaim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and would delay the fair trial of the main action.
The case centres on a dispute between M.F., represented by joint powers of attorney, and her daughter A.E. (the plaintiffs), against her son, E.F., and his spouse, K.D. (the defendants). The plaintiffs sought declarations regarding ownership of land in Rosser, Manitoba, while the defendants counterclaimed, alleging ownership rights over two corporations, breaches of trust and contract, and wrongful dismissal. The original counterclaim was struck, with leave to amend, but the court found that the amended counterclaim still failed to meet legal requirements and struck it without leave to amend.
Counterclaim for ownership of corporations dismissed
E.F. alleged that he was entitled to ownership of two family businesses—Aristocrat Sales and Service Inc. and Perimeter Drilling Ltd.—on the basis of oral agreements with his late father, and that his mother, M.F., was holding them in trust for him. The court ruled that these claims were not legally enforceable.
“The pleadings never refer to a trust agreement with E.F.’s father, only to a trust agreement with M.F.,” the court stated. “While E.F. asserts he was promised the businesses, a promise alone does not create an enforceable right.”
The court also noted that any claim based on an alleged gift of corporate ownership would require evidence that steps had been taken to perfect the transfer. “Nothing is pled by E.F. to establish that steps were taken to perfect these gifts,” the decision read. “A promise to give is not enforceable.”
Public records showed that E.F.’s father did not own any shares in Perimeter Drilling Ltd. at the time of his death, meaning he could not have legally transferred them to his son. The court deemed the counterclaim frivolous and an abuse of process.
Wrongful dismissal claim found lacking
E.F. also alleged he was wrongfully dismissed from his position at Perimeter Drilling Ltd., claiming he had worked there full-time since 2011, had been promised ownership, and had been terminated without reasonable notice. He sought compensation for unpaid wages, severance, vacation pay, and overtime.
The court found that the wrongful dismissal claim was inadequately pled, noting that “E.F. has still not properly pled a reasonable cause of action for wrongful dismissal despite two counterclaims and three sets of particulars.”
Additionally, the court found no cause of action against M.F. personally, as she was not the employer. “There is nothing pled to establish any cause of action against M.F. personally for any employment-related relief against his employer, Perimeter Drilling Ltd.,” the decision read.
The court also noted that any claims under the Employment Standards Code would likely be time-barred, as wage claims must be brought within six months and termination claims within one year.
Tools and equipment claim also dismissed
E.F. also sought the return of tools and equipment he claimed had been sold when Perimeter Drilling Ltd. was transferred to another family member. While the court acknowledged that a possible claim for unjust enrichment might exist, it ruled that allowing this counterclaim would unnecessarily expand the scope of the trial.
“Allowing the counterclaim to proceed would prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action,” the court stated, noting that such claims should be pursued separately if they were still viable under applicable limitation periods.
Court denies further amendments
The court ruled that the counterclaim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend, citing the defendants’ failure to provide sufficient particulars despite multiple opportunities to do so.
“There is no reasonable prospect that the defendant will successfully plead the requisite elements of a trust agreement relating to the properties,” the decision read. “To allow further amendments would only cause further inordinate delay.”
The court awarded costs to the plaintiffs, with the parties invited to speak to the matter if they could not agree on an amount.
For more information, see Futros et al. v. Futros and Deighton, 2025 MBKB 24 (CanLII).
