The British Columbia Court of Appeal has significantly reduced a $12 million award previously granted to a ranching consultant, ruling that while he was entitled to compensation for facilitating a major cattle ranch acquisition, the parties had not reached a sufficiently certain oral agreement on the specific fee1. The decision, released on January 6, 2026, involves a complex series of negotiations surrounding the sale of Blue Goose Cattle Company Ltd., a substantial operation involving 16 ranches across 45,000 acres in the British Columbia interior. The appellate court ultimately substituted the original $12 million award with a $2.7 million payment, finding that the lower court had made a palpable error in determining that a binding contract for the larger amount existed.
The dispute began with the efforts of David Dutcyvich, an experienced cattle rancher and entrepreneur, and his company, 3L Developments Inc. In early 2020, Dutcyvich was retained by LBJ Capital Inc. to assist in the purchase of Blue Goose Cattle Company shares from Blue Goose Capital, a subsidiary of Dundee Corporation. The asking price for the operation was originally set at over $100 million. Under his initial arrangement with LBJ Capital, Dutcyvich was to receive a fee amounting to half of the difference between the $100 million asking price and the final negotiated price. Through extensive due diligence, including hundreds of hours of document review and physical inspections by helicopter, Dutcyvich and his chief financial officer, James MacIntyre, identified significant discrepancies in the assets. They discovered that the cattle count was substantially lower than represented, with approximately 5,000 cows instead of the 14,000 listed in previous appraisals.
As a result of this work, the purchase price for LBJ Capital was negotiated down to $76 million, which would have entitled Dutcyvich to a $12 million commission under his original agreement. However, LBJ Capital was unable to secure the necessary funding, and by early 2021, the sellers became frustrated and refused to continue dealing with LBJ’s principals. During this period, Darrel Monette, the owner of Monette Farms Ltd., entered the picture. Monette had initially been involved with the LBJ Group in a separate capacity but soon became interested in purchasing the Blue Goose ranches himself. Because the sellers were skittish about new buyers following the LBJ failure, Dutcyvich’s role became vital as an intermediary who could vouch for Monette’s financial credibility.
In March 2021, Dutcyvich and Monette met to discuss the potential acquisition. According to testimony from Dutcyvich, Monette agreed to “the deal,” which Dutcyvich understood to be the same $12 million fee that had been established during the LBJ negotiations. Dutcyvich proceeded to introduce Monette to the sellers’ representative, Tochi Lewis-Asonye, effectively opening the door for Monette Farms to proceed with the acquisition. Over the following months, Dutcyvich continued to provide assistance, including participating in weekly conference calls and conducting a final helicopter tour of the properties with Monette and his legal counsel in May 2021. The deal eventually closed in October 2021, with Monette Farms purchasing the ranching operations for $63 million through a subsidiary.
When Monette Farms refused to pay the $12 million invoice sent after the closing, Dutcyvich and 3L Developments filed a lawsuit. At trial, the judge found in favor of the plaintiffs, preferring the evidence of Dutcyvich and MacIntyre over that of Monette. The trial judge noted that Monette had been “duplicitous” by acting as a front for LBJ Capital while knowing the sellers would not deal with them. The trial court concluded that an oral contract for $12 million had been formed in early March 2021 and, in the alternative, that the plaintiffs were entitled to that same amount as a restitutionary award for unjust enrichment. Monette Farms and the associated appellants subsequently challenged both findings, arguing that there was never a “meeting of the minds” regarding the $12 million fee.
In reviewing the case, the Court of Appeal focused heavily on a series of emails exchanged on March 16, 2021. On that day, MacIntyre had sent Monette a direction to pay the $12 million fee. Monette, seemingly surprised, forwarded the email to LBJ Capital’s principals, asking why he had received it. A representative from LBJ replied that the fee was LBJ’s responsibility and told Monette to disregard the email. MacIntyre then sent a follow-up note to Monette telling him to “disregard the draft agreement” as LBJ had indicated they would honor the previous arrangement. The Court of Appeal found that these communications were a critical piece of evidence that the trial judge had misapprehended. From the perspective of an objective reasonable bystander, the court ruled, these emails showed that Monette did not believe he was personally or corporately responsible for the $12 million.
Justice MacNaughton, writing for the unanimous appellate panel, explained that for an oral contract to be enforceable, there must be certainty regarding all essential terms. While the parties, the scope of work, and the intention to create a legal relationship were clear, the specific payment term was not. The court noted that evidence of a party’s subjective state of mind is irrelevant; the test is what a reasonable person would conclude based on the words and conduct of the parties. Because the March 16 emails created significant ambiguity and suggested the fee was the responsibility of a third party, the court held that there was no true agreement on the $12 million amount. Consequently, the trial judge’s finding of a binding contract for that specific sum was set aside.
Despite the dismissal of the contract claim, the court turned its attention to the alternative claim of unjust enrichment. To succeed in such a claim, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant was enriched, that the plaintiff suffered a corresponding deprivation, and that there was no legal or “juristic” reason for the enrichment. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that Monette and his company had clearly benefited from Dutcyvich’s expertise and his personal relationship with the sellers. Without Dutcyvich’s introduction and his confirmation that Monette was a viable buyer, the deal likely would not have proceeded. The court found that Monette had leveraged the trust Dutcyvich had built with the sellers to secure a massive ranching operation at a favorable price.
However, the appellate court disagreed with how the trial judge quantified the value of these services. The trial judge had used the $12 million figure because it had “loomed large” throughout the negotiations. The Court of Appeal pointed out that a restitutionary award, often referred to as quantum meruit, must be based on the actual value of the services provided to the benefiting party, rather than the cost to the provider or a figure borrowed from a separate, failed contract. The court observed that the $12 million fee was originally calculated based on a specific saving in purchase price achieved during the LBJ phase. By the time Monette entered the deal, much of that groundwork had already been laid, and the additional work provided to Monette was less onerous than the initial due diligence performed for LBJ.
To determine a fair award, the court looked to the industry standard for “finder’s fees” or introduction fees in large-scale commercial transactions. The court referenced the principles established in previous cases, such as Malik v. State Petroleum Corporation, which outline factors for valuing the work of an intermediary. These factors include the expertise and reputation of the provider, the market value of the service, and the value perceived by the recipient at the time the service is rendered. The court noted that Monette viewed the ranch as a “legacy” for his family, further confirming the substantial value of the introduction provided by Dutcyvich.
Rather than sending the case back for a new trial to determine the specific value of the services, the Court of Appeal accepted an alternative calculation provided by the respondents. This calculation included an industry-standard introduction fee plus an additional $1 million for the specific work performed between March and May 2021, totaling $2.7 million. The court found this to be a more appropriate measure of the benefit received by Monette Farms. The court also dismissed a request to introduce fresh evidence regarding Dutcyvich’s current health and a more recent appraisal of the ranch assets, ruling that such information was not relevant to the value of the services at the time they were rendered in 2021.
The final judgment concluded by allowing the appeal in part. The original order for $12 million was vacated, and a new order was issued requiring the appellants to pay $2.7 million to David Dutcyvich and 3L Developments Inc. The court emphasized that while a contract requires a precise meeting of the minds on all fundamental terms, the law of restitution ensures that individuals who provide valuable commercial services are not left uncompensated simply because the formal requirements of a contract were not fully met.
Read more about business cases in Canada here.
