Canada Case Law

Belfor (Canada) Inc. v. BC Hardwood Floor Co. Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On a reading of the Contract as a whole the warranty expressly limited recovery to the defendant's labour and materials necessary to perform warranty work and explicitly excluded all consequential and out‑of‑pocket expenses; therefore the plaintiff cannot recover the consequential expenses and the defendant is not liable in contract; damages could not be determined on the evidence, and severance of liability for summary determination was appropriate but unnecessary given the exclusion clause.

Source excerpt

• Warranty
• Exclusion clause
• Consequential damages
• Contract interpretation
• Summary trial (rule 9-7)

Read case analysis

2689686 Ontario Inc. v. Lloyd's Underwriters

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal upheld summary judgment dismissing an insurance coverage claim, finding the roof collapse was caused by frost heaving excluded by the policy and that nullification did not apply.

• Exclusion clause
• Builder's risk policy
• Summary judgment
• Doctrine of nullification
• Expert evidence
• Insurance

Read case analysis

Surrey (City) v. Co-operators General Insurance Company

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

La Cour suprême de la Colombie-Britannique a conclu que Co-operators devait défendre la Ville de Surrey dans une action sous-jacente relative à une blessure sur un appareil de musculation.

• Duty to defend
• Additional insured endorsement
• Exclusion clause
• Pleadings rule
• Causation
• Summary trial suitability

Read case analysis

Zheng v. Bank of China (Canada) Vancouver Richmond Branch

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed Ms. Zheng’s appeal from summary dismissal, finding a triable issue as to the bank’s knowledge of a prevailing fraud and any duty to warn.

• Duty to warn
• Duty to inquire
• Summary judgment
• Exclusion clause
• Unconscionability
• Causation

Read case analysis

Argyle (Municipality) v. ABCO Industries Limited

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The motion was dismissed because the posed question was not a pure question of law appropriate for determination under Rule 12: the contract was not a standard form agreement and required interpretation in light of a factual matrix that was not before the court; the necessary factual scaffolding (surrounding circumstances and documentary context) was incomplete and contested, so a trial was required to resolve mixed fact and law issues.

Source excerpt

• Exclusion clause
• Warranty
• Fitness for purpose
• Merchantable quality
• Preliminary determination under rule 12
• Tercon test

Read case analysis

MC0-01410

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The appellant held permanent resident status in Brazil conferring rights substantially similar to nationals; he voluntarily left and remained outside Brazil for over two years thereby forfeiting that status; discriminatory treatment experienced in Brazil did not meet the legal threshold for persecution; weighing the Zeng factors the balance favours exclusion under Article 1E, so the appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under the Act.

Source excerpt

• Exclusion clause
• Article 1e
• Permanent residence
• Risk assessment
• Zeng test

Read case analysis

Smith v. Asaff

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Rule 12 motion presented a pure question of law limited to the first Tercon step. The exclusion clause in the Inspection Agreement is ambiguous, poorly drafted and does not expressly or unambiguously cover negligence; it must be construed contra proferentem and therefore does not operate to limit T.E. Gordon’s liability to the inspection fee. Accordingly the clause does not bar damages beyond the fee; issues of unconscionability and public policy are mixed fact and law and were not decided on this motion.

Source excerpt

• Exclusion clause
• Limitation of liability
• Tercon analysis
• Unconscionability
• Rule 12 motion
• Contra proferentem

Read case analysis

Transport Canpar L.P. v. 3258042 Nova Scotia Limited

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The lease contained an implied term that the leased premises were to be designed and constructed in accordance with the National Building Code; the court found the roof purlins' load capacity was significantly lower than required by the applicable Code (1990 edition standard of 42 psf), the implied term was breached, and that breach caused the roof collapse. Independently, the landlord breached the duty of care by failing to monitor and remove snow and ice in unusual snowfall conditions; that negligence was a factual cause of Canpar’s damage. The exclusion clause (clause 10.01) did not apply…

Source excerpt

• Implied term of lease
• Landlord and tenant obligations
• Negligence
• Duty of care
• Causation (but for)
• Exclusion clause

Read case analysis

TB9-18436

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant failed to meet his burden to establish past persecution or a real risk of persecution on return, failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence, and failed to satisfy the statutory test to admit new evidence; therefore the RPD's negative refugee determination was correct.

Source excerpt

• Convention refugee
• Person in need of protection
• Admissibility of new evidence
• State protection
• Roma discrimination
• Exclusion clause

Read case analysis

Apps v. Grouse Mountain Resorts Ltd.

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that post-purchase terrain-park signs and prior Whistler dealings could not validate an inconspicuous own-negligence waiver.

• Exclusion clause
• Waiver of liability
• Own negligence clause
• Reasonable notice and incorporation of terms
• Prior dealings and actual knowledge
• Standard of review

Read case analysis