2 total
Appeal dismissed; municipality lacked statutory authority to impose duty to warn about noise on builder.
The appellant appealed a trial decision finding that the Town of Oakville did not owe her a duty of care to require a builder to warn about noise.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that the Town lacked the legal authority under the Planning Act to impose such a duty on the builder.
The court found that the Town's inability to discharge the duty without the Region's consent to severance negated any prima facie duty of care.
No costs were awarded as the Town did less than it might have.
Appeal dismissed; trial judge did not err in finding an exclusive supply agreement with an implied term for reasonable price.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding an exclusive supply agreement and awarding damages for its breach.
They argued that the trial judge erred in finding an exclusive supply agreement after concluding there was no consulting agreement, that the pleadings were deficient, and that the arrangement was merely an 'agreement to agree' due to missing terms like price.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the agreements were not so interrelated as to preclude finding a supply agreement, the pleadings were sufficient, and there was an implied term that raw materials would be provided at a reasonable price.
The court also upheld the trial judge's quantification of damages based on a 12-month period and a 15% profit margin.
