Charles J. Brannen

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that reduced its damages for a breached commercial sublease due to a failure to mitigate, and dismissed its claims against the individual respondent for inducing breach of contract.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant had no obligation to renegotiate the sublease to mitigate damages, increasing the judgment against the corporate respondent.

However, the Court upheld the dismissal of the personal claims against the individual respondent, finding he acted in good faith as the directing mind of the corporation, which breached the lease simply due to a loss of revenue.

The award of solicitor-and-client costs to the individual respondent was also upheld due to unsubstantiated allegations of fraud.

This appeal arose from a cottage purchase involving an alleged septic system defect and a warranty that the system had operated satisfactorily and, to the best of the vendors’ knowledge, was installed according to local health authority requirements.

The court upheld the trial judge’s finding that there was no breach of warranty and no negligence by the real estate brokerage in failing to obtain or draft a broader warranty.

The court allowed the solicitor’s appeal, holding that where counsel is retained after a binding agreement of purchase and sale has been signed, there was no duty on these facts to advise the purchaser to attempt to negotiate a price abatement for a concluded deal.

The claim against the solicitor was dismissed, and the purchaser’s appeal against the other respondents was dismissed.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed on consent.

The court made no costs order.

The endorsement contains no substantive analysis.