A BC Supreme Court judge dismissed a case filed in Williams Lake, but moved to Kamloops, due to what was described as the plaintiff’s inordinate and inexcusable delays over nearly four years.
Justice Lindsay Lyster, in a March 14 decision, said it would undermine public confidence in the justice system to proceed with Nickolaus Weiser’s lawsuit against Lawrence Marsh, Leslee Marsh and Integrita Consulting and Developments Inc.
Weiser was friends with and the lawyer for the Marshes, but sued them in January 2021, seeking transfer of half the shares in Integrita. The defendants denied they were equal partners with Weiser and countersued. March filed the case in Williams Lake, despite all parties living in Kamloops. The Marshes successfully applied in May 2021 to have the file moved to Kamloops.
Lyster found that Weiser failed to respond to steps taken by the Marshes, thus driving up their costs.
“Mr. Weiser has done essentially nothing to pursue his action despite the defendants taking persistent and active steps to require him to do so,” Lyster wrote. “The defendants promptly filed their response to civil claim. Their counsel requested Mr. Weiser’s list of documents four or five times and was forced to file an application before Mr. Weiser finally provided his list.”
Weiser blamed some of the delays on having to contest another matter: Law Society of BC disciplinary citations, some of which related to complaints made by the defendants. Weiser, who had ceased to be a member of the Law Society, was finally disbarred in March 2024 for professional misconduct, including improper use of his trust account for personal financial benefit.
Lyster acknowledged Weiser sent a letter to the Marshes prior to filing the lawsuit, asking them to transfer shares to him that were allegedly held in trust by them for the Weiser family. Weiser mentioned a potential profit for his family of $1.83 million was at stake.
“The notice of civil claim in this case does not plead fraud, but Mr. Weiser’s April 24, 2020 letter to the Marshes clearly did allege fraud,” Lyster wrote. “In it, he threatened to ruin them if they did not comply with his demands. I agree with the defendants’ submission that the letter colours Mr. Weiser’s subsequent actions in filing the notice of civil claim and then effectively taking no action to pursue it.”
