2 total
Appeal allowed; bank held liable for misrepresenting that a renovation loan was a sure thing.
The appellant contractor sued the respondent bank for misrepresentation after the bank failed to advance a $150,000 loan to a mall owner to pay for renovations.
The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the bank had informed the contractor that the loan was conditional on a guarantor's signature.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge misapprehended the evidence.
The bank had represented that the loan was a sure thing and that the signature was a mere formality, knowing this was untrue and that the contractor would rely on it.
Judgment was entered for the contractor for the undisputed contract amount plus costs.
Board issues related employer declaration against multiple construction entities after several failed to attend the hearing.
The applicant union sought a related employer and sale of business declaration against multiple responding corporate entities.
Several responding parties failed to attend the hearing, and the remaining active responding parties did not oppose the related employer declaration.
The Board applied its Rules of Procedure regarding failure to attend, accepted the applicant's submissions, and declared that five of the responding entities constitute a single employer bound by the applicable provincial collective agreement.
The hearing on the remaining issues was scheduled to continue at a later date.
