John Anthony Caldwell

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claim for recovery of a $200,000 deposit paid for the purchase of a property at 291 Eglinton Avenue East in Toronto.

The property was zoned R4 Az4 (residential with permitted office use) and had been used as commercial office space by the respondent.

The motion judge dismissed claims of negligent misrepresentation regarding zoning, found no breach of the agreement of purchase and sale by the respondent, determined the respondent was ready, willing and able to close, and found the appellant's anticipatory breach entitled the respondent to retain the deposit.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision on all grounds.

The plaintiffs, two insurance companies (RSA/CNS), sued 2421593 Canadian Inc. (formerly Vancity Insurance Services Ltd. - VCI) and others for breach of contract.

The central issue was whether a legally enforceable contract existed for the exclusive provision of habitational insurance by RSA/CNS to VCI, and if so, whether VCI wrongfully terminated it.

The court found that the parties had entered into a legally binding agreement by September 11, 2008, for a five-year exclusive term with a two-year termination notice.

VCI breached this agreement by terminating it on September 9, 2009, without the required notice.

The court dismissed the action against Vancouver City Savings Credit Union due to lack of evidence for a conspiracy claim.

Damages for breach of contract against 2421593 Canadian Inc. are to be calculated based on a specified loss ratio and loss period.

The appellants, two insurance companies, appealed the summary dismissal of their action against respondents for breach of an alleged oral agreement and inducement of breach of contract.

The motion judge dismissed the action on the basis that the parties had agreed that no binding contractual relationship would exist without a signed written agreement (the "Precondition").

The Court of Appeal found this conclusion was a palpable and overriding error.

The evidence only supported that the parties intended to eventually document their agreement in writing, not that execution of a written contract was a precondition to legal obligations.

The court allowed the appeal against the Vancity respondents and directed the matter to trial, but dismissed the appeal against the Co-operators respondents on alternative grounds.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss claims of breach of contract and inducing breach of contract.

The plaintiffs alleged an oral agreement for an exclusive insurance supplier arrangement with Vancity Insurance, which was later sold to Co-operators.

The court found that no binding oral agreement existed because the parties intended their legal obligations to be deferred until a formal written contract was approved and executed.

Consequently, the claim for inducing breach of contract against Co-operators also failed, as there was no valid contract to breach, and Co-operators had no knowledge of a binding agreement, nor did it "turn a blind eye." The action was dismissed against all defendants.