Nicolas Businger

This appeal concerns a commercial dispute between The North West Company LP (NWC) and Classic Furs Company Ltd. (CF) over the supply of coyote furs for use in Canada Goose parkas.

The trial judge found a contract existed and that NWC breached it in several respects, but also found in NWC’s favour on unpaid invoices.

Both parties appealed aspects of the damages assessment and liability findings.

The Court of Appeal allowed CF’s appeal in part, finding that the trial judge erred in concluding that certain furs were delivered, and recalculated damages accordingly, including an award of punitive damages against NWC.

The applicants sought relief arising from Minutes of Settlement concerning the respondents' proposed building of a new three-story house, alleging breaches related to a third-story deck/patio doors overlooking their backyard, and soil addition potentially harming their tree.

The court found no breach of the Minutes of Settlement, determining that the respondents' building plans were in "substantial compliance" with the agreed-upon Revised Zoning Drawings.

The court also found no expert evidence to substantiate the applicants' drainage or tree damage concerns and dismissed the application, noting that the parties had resolved a separate mutual right-of-way issue.

This case involved a dispute over a verbal contract for the supply of coyote furs between a fur marketing company and a fur manufacturing company.

The marketing company sued for unpaid invoices, and the manufacturing company counterclaimed for breach of contract, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, and conspiracy.

The court found a binding oral contract for a specific quantity of furs at a fixed price.

The marketing company breached the contract by failing to deliver the agreed quantity and by unilaterally increasing the price.

The court adjusted the marketing company's claim for unpaid invoices, granted the manufacturing company a refund for poor quality furs on one invoice, and relieved it from paying two other disputed invoices.

Claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, and conspiracy were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

Minimal damages were awarded to the manufacturing company for the breach of contract due to lack of reliable quantification and mitigation evidence.

A third-party claim against an individual was also dismissed.

This is an appeal from a Master's decision regarding an undertakings and refusals motion.

The appellant, Classic Furs Company Ltd., sought to compel The Northwest Company LP and its employee Jason White to answer certain refused questions and provide further documentation related to shipping, customs, and supplier invoices for coyote furs, as well as accounting treatment of invoices.

The Master had largely ruled in favour of the respondents.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Master's discretionary decisions on sufficiency of production and findings of irrelevance for the requested documents and questions, applying the palpable and overriding error standard for discretionary matters and correctness for relevance.

The plaintiffs sought an order to prevent the dismissal of their action for delay under Rule 48.14 and to establish a new timetable for trial.

The action, commenced in 2014, faced dismissal after five years.

The court applied the two-part test from Faris v. Eftimovski, requiring an acceptable explanation for delay and no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The court found that some delay was attributable to a co-defendant's dilatory conduct and reasonable settlement discussions, though the plaintiffs were not entirely diligent.

Crucially, no non-compensable prejudice was found, as principal witnesses were available, and the defendants retained avenues to obtain evidence from the settled co-defendant.

The motion was granted, a revised timetable was set, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff insurance brokerage sought an interim interlocutory injunction restraining former employee producers and their new employer from soliciting or dealing with certain customers pending a full motion hearing.

The court applied the three‑part test from RJR–MacDonald for interlocutory injunctions.

While there appeared to be a strong prima facie case against one former employee, the evidence against the others was largely speculative, and the alleged harm was found to be quantifiable through damages given the nature of the brokerage business.

Considering the balance of convenience, delay by the plaintiff, and the availability of undertakings proposed by the defendants, the court declined to grant the requested interim injunction and instead accepted undertakings pending the return of the motion.