Canada Case Law

Kirby v. Turner

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Defendants owed a duty of care to their client sellers (the McNallys) but not to the non-client buyers (the Kirbys) because no proximate relationship was established; the applicable standard of care in October 2020–March 2021 permitted seller identity verification up to completion consistent with FINTRAC/CREA practices then in force, the particular email impersonation fraud was not a known industry risk at the time, the defendants met the standard, causation was not established on the plaintiffs' case, negligent misrepresentation failed for lack of a special relationship and actionable false…

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Proximity
• Standard of care
• Causation
• Vicarious liability
• Identity verification

Read case analysis

Hainan Dehong Real Estate Development Corporation v. 0952130 B.C. Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and contract claims against ABW, Viva Pro, and Frank Lee, but found Christopher Lee liable for fraud and ordered USD 500,000 plus interest.

• Duty of care
• Proximate relationship and undertaking
• Standard of care and expert evidence
• Causation
• Apparent and actual authority
• Piercing the corporate veil

Read case analysis

Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. v. Gomel

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal partly allowed Ticketmaster’s appeal and Gomel’s cross-appeal in this class certification dispute about BPCPA, Competition Act, and unjust enrichment claims.

• Certification
• Bpcpa ss.4-5-8-9-171-172
• Competition act ss.36-52
• Restoration/disgorgement
• Damages methodology
• Common issues

Read case analysis

Atlantic Canada Log Homes Inc. v. Buergi

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The 2015 estimates were non-binding and too vague to constitute a definite offer giving rise to a fixed-price contract; negligent misrepresentation not established due to absence of a special relationship, unclear reliance and changes after 2015; however, plaintiff proved some recoverable labour costs incurred to defendant's benefit and is entitled to quantum meruit recovery in a limited quantified amount ($34,329), subject to additional HST if plaintiff proves payment to the government.

Source excerpt

• Binding effect of estimates
• Offer and acceptance
• Repudiation
• Damages for unpaid work
• Hedley byrne negligent misrepresentation
• Costs

Read case analysis

Milburn v. David Canning Heat and Maintenance Limited

Court

Nova Scotia Small Claims Court

Defendant was liable for negligent misrepresentation because he twice represented the sewer line location with apparent certainty using the Scout without disclosing its limitations or his limited experience with the instrument, the claimant reasonably relied on those representations and suffered compensable loss; claimant awarded damages mitigated by set-off for defendant's proven invoices.

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Reliance
• Evidence
• Damages
• Set-off

Read case analysis

2249659 Ontario Ltd. v. Sparkasse Siegen

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court upheld the trial judge: Sparkasse's letter was true and not misleading in context, the respondents did not act negligently in issuing it, and RCI did not reasonably rely to its detriment; credibility and inferential findings were supported by the record and no palpable and overriding error was shown, so the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Misrepresentation by omission
• Reasonable reliance
• Credit and bank financing
• Procedural fairness
• Appellate review standard

Read case analysis

Carson v. Kearney (Town)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The municipality was liable in negligence because its Chief Building Officer and the Town council acted unreasonably over an extended course of conduct in processing permits, causing compensable business losses; the respondents were not required to mitigate by spending money they no longer had, and the trial's damages and substantial indemnity costs awards were not disturbed.

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Reasonableness in exercise of statutory discretion
• Mitigation of damages
• Damages assessment
• Costs and substantial indemnity
• Municipal building and zoning permits

Read case analysis

Saulnier v. Diamond

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The defendants, through their agent, supplied a ladder they knew to be old and failed to warn the plaintiff of its limits; the plaintiff reasonably relied on that representation and was injured, establishing liability in negligence, negligent misrepresentation and under the Occupier's Liability Act; plaintiff also materially contributed to his injury by drinking and making a cursory inspection, therefore liability is apportioned 50/50 and damages assessed and halved accordingly.

Source excerpt

• Occupier's liability act s.4
• Res ipsa loquitur
• Contributory negligence act s.3(1)
• Causation
• Apportionment of liability
• Assessment of general and special damages

Read case analysis

CIBC Wood Gundy v. Matheson

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held the application judge correctly rejected a modified "but for" causation test; the plaintiff bears the burden to prove that reliance caused the loss and, absent sufficient evidence of what would have occurred but for the misstatement, damages cannot be awarded. The application judge erred in awarding EEM clawback damages because he did not establish the necessary causal link from reliance to loss and shifted the burden improperly to CIBC to justify its reimbursement calculations.

Source excerpt

• Causation
• Damages
• Burden of proof
• Margin reporting error
• Iiroc settlement
• Clawback

Read case analysis

Gill v. Bassi

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Trial judgment on alleged real estate fraud and negligent misrepresentation arising from lot purchases near the Khalsa School site; most claims were dismissed.

• Purchase and sale
• Assignment of contracts
• Right of way / encumbrance
• Damages
• Credibility findings
• Costs

Read case analysis