Lac Minerals V. International Corona Resources Notes
This is a sample of our (approximately) 4 page long Lac Minerals V. International Corona Resources notes, which we sell as part of the Commercial Remedies BCL Notes collection, a Distinction package written at Oxford in 2013 that contains (approximately) 523 pages of notes across 153 different documents.
The original file is a 'Word (Docx)' whilst this sample is a 'PDF' representation of said file. This means that the formatting here may have errors. The original document you'll receive on purchase should have more polished formatting.
Lac Minerals V. International Corona Resources Revision
The following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes. This text version has had its formatting removed so pay attention to its contents alone rather than its presentation. The version you download will have its original formatting intact and so will be much prettier to look at.
LAC MINERALS V. INTERNATIONAL CORONA RESOURCES FACTS The parties to these proceedings are International Corona Resources Ltd. (which I will refer to as [page587] either "Corona" or the "respondent") and Lac Minerals Ltd. (which I will refer to as either "Lac" or the "appellant"). Corona, which was incorporated in 1979, was at material times a junior mining company listed on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Lac is a senior mining company which owns a number of operating mines and is listed on several Stock Exchanges. This action arises out of negotiations between Corona and Lac relating to the Corona property, the Williams property and the Hughes property, all of which are located in the Hemlo area of northern Ontario. In October 1980, Corona had retained Mr. David Bell, a geologist consultant to carry out an extensive exploration programme on its property which involved extensive diamond drilling. Bell hired Mr. John Dadds, a mining technician, to assist him. Mr. Bell testified that by February, 1981, he was sufficiently encouraged by the results of the drilling programme that he decided that it was time to acquire the Williams property and the claims to the north. According to Bell, no one from Lac ever told him that they would not acquire the Williams property and Lac was never told that the information given to it was private, privileged or confidential. Although the evidence was contradictory, the trial judge found as a fact that the pursuit by Corona of the Williams property was mentioned at the meeting. This and other information revealed to Lac went beyond the information that had been made public. This finding was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. The trial judge also found that it was agreed that a proposal would be sent by Lac to Corona within three weeks, and that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss a possible deal between Corona and Lac in order to provide Corona with the financing needed to develop a mine. But instead of purchasing the property through a joint venture with Corona, Lac directly purchased the property by outbidding Corona. QUESTION Is a constructive trust an available remedy for a breach of confidence as well as for breach of a fiduciary duty, and if so, should this Court interfere with the lower courts' imposition of that remedy?
HOLDING SOPINKA J. (DISSENTING)
****************************End Of Sample*****************************
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes.