E-gaming lawsuit appeal denied

The companies suing the P.E.I. government and other parties in a lawsuit related to the failed egaming scheme will have to provide $300,000 as security for costs to add three people to the case.

In a unanimous decision, the P.E.I. Court of Appeal denied an appeal by Capital Markets Technologies Inc. and 7645686 Canada Inc. of a lower court’s order requiring the security as a condition of adding the new defendants.

Writing for the court of appeal, Chief Justice David Jenkins said the decision of the motions judge who ordered the security for costs was reasonable.

The latest order for security for costs adds to more than $700,00 the plaintiffs were previously ordered to provide in case they were unsuccessful in their lawsuit.

Along with the provincial government, former finance minister Wes Sheridan, former premier Robert Ghiz, Steven MacLean, Allan Campbell, Chris LeClair, Brad Mix, Cheryl Paynter, Steven Dowling, William Dow, Melissa MacEachern, Gary Scales, Tracey Cutcliffe, Neil Stewart, Paul Jenkins and 7628382 Canada Corporation have all been named as defendants.

Dow, Scales and Cutcliffe were the most recent additions to the lawsuit.

Jenkins wrote in the appeal decision that he shared the view that the actions appear to be complex, involve multiple people and corporations and raise significant issues of credibility.

“In all these circumstances, the determination of the motions judge that prospects for success cannot be measured seems to me to be reasonable,” Jenkins wrote.

The appeal decision also addressed the 2016 auditor general report that Jenkins wrote was the key evidence on the motion.

Jenkins wrote that the report was concerning in its findings about government and government-related-actors’-actions, but its findings weren’t evidence yet.

The auditor general’s report’s mandate was also different from that of a trial judge, Jenkins wrote.

“It may be that some of the auditor general’s findings have probative value in the proceeding, but a large extent of her findings and recommendations are matters for another forum.”

The court also ordered the plaintiffs to pay $12,303 in costs for the appeal.