3 total
Appeal dismissed; load broker who voluntarily paid shipper for spoiled cargo cannot claim equitable set-off.
The appellant, Day & Ross Inc., appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering it to pay $18,100 to the respondent, a factoring company that purchased invoices from a motor carrier.
Day & Ross had withheld payment, claiming equitable set-off for a spoiled load of cauliflower that it had paid the shipper for.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that Day & Ross acted as a load broker with no legal obligation to pay the shipper, that there was no implied assignment of the shipper's claim, and that equitable set-off did not apply.
Action dismissed where law firm mismanagement failed to justify litigation delay.
At a status hearing under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered whether the plaintiff had shown cause why its action should not be dismissed for delay.
The plaintiff attributed the delay primarily to misconduct and inaction by an associate lawyer who had carriage of the file.
The court held that internal law firm disorganization, lack of supervision, and unanswered correspondence from opposing counsel did not constitute a reasonable explanation for prolonged inactivity.
Although no specific prejudice to the defendants was proven, the presumption of prejudice from delay was not displaced.
The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the action for delay.
Crown found liable for $29M in lost profits for bad faith in a government procurement process.
The plaintiffs, a joint venture, sued the Attorney General of Canada for damages arising from a flawed government procurement process for relocation services.
The plaintiffs alleged that the Crown breached its implied contractual duty of fair and equal treatment by designing the Request for Proposals to favour the incumbent contractor, Royal LePage Relocation Services.
The court found that the Crown acted in bad faith, intentionally concealed preferences in the tender documents, and allowed the incumbent to submit a non-compliant bid regarding property management services.
The court declared the plaintiffs the successful tendering party and awarded them $29,166,507 in damages for lost profits.
A claim for punitive damages was dismissed.
