This article is part of the series from the Higgerty Law statement of claim. You can read what a statement of claim and a Quistclose Trust is in the first article in this series.
These sections detail / allege –
- (d) that it was reasonably foreseeable that District / CEF’s actions would result in damage to the depositors,
- District owed a particular duty of care to the depositors by virtue of their association with the Lutheran faith,
- District breached that duty of care,
- LCC and LCCFM participated in this venture which makes them liable as well.
- (e) District was an agent of LCC / LCCFM
- this means that Districts actions were under LCC/ LCCFM’s authority
- this makes LCC / LCCFM jointly liable for District’s actions.
Please note that these are allegations only and this case has not been adjudicated in a court of law. As always, if you have any legal questions or need legal advice please consult appropriate legal counsel.
M. Liability of ABC District, LCC and LCCFM
(d) Negligence: ABC District/LCC/LCCFM
172. It was reasonably foreseeable to the ABC District that failure to take reasonable care in the investment of the monies received from the Plaintiffs and putative Class and Sub class members for deposit into the CEF would result in the loss of those monies and damage to the Plaintiffs and putative Class and Sub-Class members.
a. the ABC District had a distinctly religious purpose;
b. funds deposited to the CEF were to be used for religious purposes, namely building churches and schools to carry out the ministry of the Lutheran faith or to support the mission and ministry of congregations or agencies of the LCC.
c. The depositors in the CEF, to the knowledge of the ABC District, were members of the Lutheran or other Christian faiths, or in the case of businesses, were owned or controlled by members of the Lutheran Faith.
174. Accordingly, the ABC District owed a duty of care to the Plaintiffs and putative Class and Sub-class members to take reasonable care in the investment of the monies received from the Plaintiffs and putative Class and Sub-class members for deposit into the CEF.
175. The ABC District breached its duty of care to the Plaintiffs and putative Alberta Class and Sub-class members by way of conduct including but not limited to:
a. With respect to the POP Village Lands and the CEF POP Village Advances and the POP Village CEF Loans, by way of the conduct set out in paras. 43 – 81 herein;
b. With respect to the Prince of Peace Congregation Loan, by way of the conduct set out in paras. 82 – 90 herein;
c. With respect to the Strathmore Loan, by way of the conduct set out in paras. 91 – 95 herein;
d. With respect to the Shepherd’s Village CEF Loans, by way of the conduct set out in paras. 97 – 108 herein; thereby causing damages and loss to the Plaintiffs and putative Alberta District Class and Sub-class and Extra-provincial District Class and Sub-class members.
176. As participants in the joint enterprise that was the ABC District’s Church Extension Program, LCC and LCCFM are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs and putative Class and Sub-class members for ABC District’s negligence in the operation of the Church Extension Program.
(e) Vicarious Liability of LCC
177. In the alternative, at all times material to these proceedings the ABC District acted as the agent of LCC and/or LCCFM in the operation and administration of the ABC District’s Church Extension Program. The acts, omissions and breaches of duty of ABC District as set out herein occurred within the normal course of the business of LCC and/or LCCFM, and were within the actual or ostensible authority granted to ABC District by LCC and/or LCCFM. Accordingly, LCC and/or LCCFM are vicariously liable for the acts, omissions and breaches of duty of ABC District set out herein