Charles T. Hackland

The appellant, a chartered accountant, was interviewed for a management position with the respondent software company.

During the interview, the respondent's representative negligently misrepresented the nature and existence of the project the appellant was to work on, failing to disclose that funding was not guaranteed.

Relying on these representations, the appellant left a secure job and relocated his family.

He signed an employment contract allowing termination without cause on one month's notice.

Shortly after starting, the project's funding was denied and the appellant was eventually terminated.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the respondent owed a duty of care during the pre-employment interview, which was breached by the negligent misrepresentations.

The Court further held that the subsequent employment contract did not bar the independent tort claim, restoring the trial judge's award of damages.

The respondent subcontractor entered into a construction contract containing a clause waiving its mechanics' lien rights.

When the contractor failed to make progress payments, constituting a fundamental breach, the respondent treated the contract as at an end and filed a lien.

The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the question of whether an exclusionary clause applies following a fundamental breach is a matter of construction of the contract.

The Court held that the waiver clause ceased to bind the respondent upon the fundamental breach, and section 5(1) of the Mechanics' Lien Act did not foreclose the lien irrespective of the fate of the contract.