Mr. Williams

A pharmaceutical distributor sued after a retailer terminated a long-term supply agreement based on a dispute over whether contractual negative financial impact compensation and earned term extensions continued beyond the initial term.

The court held that the compensation mechanism applied throughout the defined Term, including extensions, and that the retailer wrongfully terminated the agreement on March 31, 2021.

Applying the minimum performance doctrine, the court held that extensions earned before breach could not be unwound, but post-breach damages had to be assessed on the least burdensome mode of future contractual performance, limiting the term to December 31, 2022.

The plaintiff recovered NFI compensation, lost-profit damages to be calculated, and severance-based reliance damages, while claims for reclassified product margins, warehouse losses, transportation costs, vendor settlements, and enhanced prejudgment interest were denied.

On the counterclaim, the defendants recovered withheld OTC rebates and unused prepayment funds, but their transition-period lost-sales claim failed.

The appellants challenged the trial judgment on the basis that the trial judge improperly relied on res ipsa loquitur and erred in finding that a fire was probably caused by pyrolysis arising from the placement of a plywood bulkhead near an exhaust pipe.

The court held that, on the expert and other evidence, it was open to the trial judge to exclude electrical fault and find on a balance of probabilities that pyrolysis was the most likely cause.

The court further held that the construction left exposed plywood in close proximity to the exhaust pipe, contrary to recommendations and creating a risk of fire, supporting negligence and breach of the implied warranty under the Sale of Goods Act.

The appeals by Lloyd’s and Hughes were dismissed, and the plaintiffs’ cross-appeal against Spartan was also dismissed.

Several ratepayers appealed the assessments and the engineer's report for the Abraham Municipal Drain Improvement.

The appellants preferred the installation of a new, larger tile drain rather than the proposed cost-sensitive solution involving a detention berm that would flood a woodlot.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessment appeals as no evidence was presented against them.

The Tribunal confirmed the existing report but ordered the Township not to proceed until it received and considered a new report detailing the construction of a large tile drain, giving the ratepayers an opportunity to review the preferred but more expensive option.