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 allowed XTL’s claim for return of a deposit subject to set-off, limited FPS’s recoverable project costs to expenses incurred by January 5, 2016, and dismissed FPS’s counterclaim for lost profits.
Oral ruling on whether mitigation and contributory negligence should go to the jury. Mitigation was allowed; contributory negligence was not.
Wrongful dismissal summary trial on mitigation and notice. The court held the plaintiff failed to mitigate adequately and reduced notice from 17 to 14 months.
Summary trial application in a contract dispute was dismissed in part: the claim against All Pro was dismissed, but limitation, enforceability, and mitigation issues required trial.
Claimant breached the contract by abandoning communication and failing to pay; the defendants acted within reasonable bounds to mitigate damages by eventually reselling the goods; therefore the claimant is not entitled to cancel the contract or recover deposits and the claim is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Appeal dismissed. The Court upheld findings that the accident aggravated pre-existing psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, and that mitigation reductions and damages were reasonable.
The appeal is allowed because the Residential Tenancies Officer reduced the claim without evidence that the landlord failed to take reasonable steps or that a replacement tenant was likely; the onus to prove failure to mitigate rested on the tenant and was not discharged, so the landlord is entitled to the remaining contractual rent less the damage deposit.
Source excerpt
The court held that a rear-end collision aggravated the plaintiff’s pre-existing neck and back injuries, but reduced damages for failure to mitigate with exercise rehabilitation.
Rear-end collision case awarding reduced general damages, modest future care, and loss of earning capacity after findings of failure to mitigate depression and recovery.
The appellant failed to discharge the onus under s.10B because, on the evidence, his reduced income was not shown to be not reasonably sufficient to pay his portion of the rent and other reasonable expenses; accordingly early termination was not justified and damages were limited by the landlord's partial mitigation, resulting in one month's rent plus modest damage award.
Source excerpt
Explore more
