Another interpretation of the LOU is that the LOU parties are not family members. Rather, the parties to the LOU are the various respondents and Hole Consultants Ltd., a separate corporation from its sole shareholder (i.e., each applicant). One of the fundamental principles of Canadian corporate law is that a business is a separate corporation (Salomon v Salomon &Co.,  AC 22 (House of Lords)). As a corporation, Hole Consultants Ltd. has the capacity to hold rights, powers and privileges of a natural person, including the power to hold assets (Business Corporations Act, RSA 2000, c B-9, section 16(1)). The various respondents approached LOU at Hole Consultants Ltd. because they were aware that the joint venture projects had been carried out jointly by Hole Consultants Ltd. and Hole Engineering Ltd. They were also aware that the complainant was acting for and on behalf of Hole Consultants Ltd. in negotiating her share in the profits of the joint ventures. The LOU should therefore be considered and interpreted as a contract between independent and independent parties.
This issue does not appear to have been raised by counsel for the complainant; As a result, the Court of Appeal did not materialize on this subject. The most recent case of Hole v Hole, 2016 ABCA 34, poses a problem with regard to the application of a contract between family members. In this case, the applicant, James F. Hole, is the owner of the complainant, Hole Consultants Ltd. Respondents own the companies surveyed as follows: James D. Hole owns Hole Engineering Ltd; Jack Hole owns Kessa Holdings Ltd. Harry Hole owns Eloh Enterprises Ltd. and Douglas Hole owns 512725 Alberta Ltd. The individual applicant and each respondent are members of the same family. Jack Hole and Douglas Hole are the sons of each of the plaintiffs, while James D. Hole and Harry Hole are the brother and nephew of each of the plaintiffs, respectively. Siblings are free to allocate inheritance allowances in any manner they consent.
The question is whether this agreement is legally enforceable if a brother and sister is not in compliance with the agreement. This type of contract is governed by contract law. A contract is an agreement that will enforce the law. A contract is only concluded if several conditions are met. Siblings considering entering into such an agreement should be cautious, especially when deciding not to consult a lawyer. An aggrieved party cannot recover from an action for breach if there has never been a contract. The firecracker theory can be applied in certain situations to allow at least some recovery if no contract has been concluded.. . . .