Search results
The required elements of the intentional torts of civil fraud and deceit were outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak as: (1) a false representation made by the defendant; (2) some level of knowledge of the falsehood by the defendant or recklessness in making the representation; (3) the false representation caused the plaintiff to act; and (4) the plaintiff’s actions resulted in a ...
- Negligence
In addition, the Defendant must fail to meet the standard of...
- Conspiracy
The Second Type May Involve Legal Conduct That Is Used...
- Nuisance
21.110; Murphy and Witting, at p. 439. Moreover, where the...
- Defaming of Character
The determination of whether an occasion of qualified...
- Slander of Title of Property
Statute Law Right of Action For Misuse. In some...
- Malicious Prosecution
Malicious prosecution is an intentional tort that requires...
- Misuse of Process
The tort of abuse of process has four elements. As held by...
- Assignment
The ability to assign a debt or legal chose in action is...
- Negligence
Mar 25, 2019 · the defendant did rely on the false statements of plaintiff counsel, and as a result the defendant incurred a loss in the sense that they agreed to pay more than the case was worth (para 51). The motions judge further held that the plaintiff lawyer was bound by the doctrine of honesty and good faith in contractual dealings as declared by the Supreme Court in Bhasin v.
Nov 16, 2016 · Rule 7.1-3(d) of the LSUC Rules of Professional Conduct states: “Unless to do so would be unlawful or would involve a breach of solicitor-client privilege, a lawyer shall report to the Law Society, . . . d) conduct that raises a substantial question as to another licensee’s honesty, trustworthiness, or competency as a licensee;”
- What You Need to Know
- Discussion
- Takeaways
The duty of good faith and honest contractual performance does not just preclude actively misleading conduct, it also precludes half-truths, omissions and silence, which mislead the other party. Ac...A party who makes a fraudulent misrepresentation to induce another to enter into a contract may not rely upon exculpatory or limitation of liability clauses in that very contract to absolve them of...A. Background
NEP arose out of a share purchase transaction through which NEP Canada ULC (NEP) acquired the shares of MEC Operating Company ULC (MEP), a wholly owned subsidiary of Merit ULC (Merit). MEP’s assets included wells, pipelines and facilities in various producing fields in Alberta (the Transaction Assets). The share purchase agreement (SPA) included a “Schedule D” which purported to disclose all regulatory non-compliance issues. The vendors made several contractual representations and warranties...
B. The Court found that the Defendants breached the SPA, their duty of good faith and honest contractual performance and were deceitful
Schedule D to the SPA disclosed “potential instances” of various non-compliance issues. Merit argued that the word “potential” encompassed instances of non-compliance that actually existed, as well as unknown, possible instances of non-compliance, and was purposefully general and broad. It therefore argued that it had disclosed the regulatory non-compliance issues. The Court did not accept these arguments. The Court interpreted “potential” to mean possible, but not yet extant, instances of no...
C. The Court held that the Defendants could not rely on the limitation of liability clause
Given these findings of liability, the Court moved to assessing NEP’s damages. The SPA contained a limitation of liability clause which provided that no party would be liable for consequential, indirect or punitive damages, including loss of anticipated profits, business interruption or any special or incidental loss of any kind. However, the Court applied the tripartite test from Tercon2 to determine whether the limitation of liability clause was applicable in the circumstances. The Tercon t...
This case exemplifies that parties, even extremely sophisticated parties, cannot contract out of liability for deceitful or fraudulent conduct. Parties can carefully construct and agree to exclusion clauses to try to do so, but the exclusion clause will not likely operate to exclude liability in the face of an explicit fraudulent representation whi...
Dec 21, 2020 · In Callow, the Supreme Court of Canada held that: Parties to a contract have a duty of honest performance, as the Court first recognized six years ago in Bhasin v. Hrynew. [2] This duty “applies to the performance of all contracts and, by extension, to all contractual obligations and rights”. [3] Further, parties are “not free to exclude ...
Nov 26, 2021 · Applying them to the present claim, Mr Park needs to establish conscious and deliberate dishonesty by CNH in relation to a statement made, evidence given or action taken which was relevant to the judgment it procured, and that the dishonest conduct was an operative cause of the court’s decision to enter judgment in those terms.
People also ask
Can a dishonest representation set aside a judgment?
What happens if a defendant breaches the duty of honest performance?
What is the aim of addressing the evils of dishonest claims?
Do parties have a duty of honest performance?
Why did a lawyer make a false statement?
Is fundamental dishonesty punitive?
Mar 5, 2021 · Parliament has plainly concluded that the aim of addressing the evils of dishonest claims justifies depriving a claimant of the part of the claim he can prove and providing the defendant with the windfall of not having to satisfy a lawful claim, albeit one that may have been dishonestly presented.”
