Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court found fraudulent misrepresentation by partial concealment about a leaking roof, but denied rescission and damages. The plaintiff won payment under the consulting agreement.
The motions for summary judgment were dismissed because there are genuine issues of material fact and arguable issues of law on negligent and contractual misrepresentation (including whether "like new" meant "accident free", the effect of broker dual agency, and the status/effect of exclusion/"as is" clauses), whereas the pleaded Sale of Goods Act claims under ss.14,15(a),16 and 17 (paragraphs 23–28 of the statement of claim) do not raise a real chance of success and are dismissed.
Source excerpt
No binding employment contract was formed because defendant's Board never accepted the plaintiff's offer; however the defendant's CEO negligently misrepresented that Board approval would not be a problem, that misrepresentation induced the plaintiff to sign the non-competition agreement, and therefore the non-competition agreement is rescinded as null and void ab initio and the plaintiff is entitled to damages for negligent misrepresentation, subject to a set-off of $25,000 received by the plaintiff.
Source excerpt
The court rejected Masev’s rescission and misrepresentation counterclaim, upheld the amended management agreement, and awarded the plaintiffs contractual payments and nominal damages.
The court rescinded a motor vehicle accident release after finding the insurer’s settlement with an unrepresented claimant was substantially unfair and unconscionable.
The Court of Appeal upheld liability for constructive dismissal but held the salary misrepresentation did not justify rescission or dismissal for cause. Damages were reduced to $72,800.
The Court held that both parties contracted under the shared but false fundamental assumption that Phalen Colliery alone could supply sufficient gas for the 4 MW project as designed and financed; that mutual mistake went to the root of the CGA and MOU, rendering rescission appropriate; Devco was therefore justified in terminating and is not liable for breach, negligent misrepresentation or negligence in relation to the Lingan flooding; claims dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld rescission of a stock subscription induced by misrepresentation. VanHummell was treated as the company’s agent, and the company had to return the money and notes.
Explore more
