|
Damages - Torts. Zhang v. Primont Homes (Caledon) Inc.
In Zhang v. Primont Homes (Caledon) Inc. (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a trial judgment that found the real estate professional defendants negligently misrepresented the location of a property for which the plaintiffs entered into an APS as purchasers.
Here the court cites basics of tort damages:[21] A successful plaintiff in a tort action is entitled to be compensated for all reasonably foreseeable losses caused by the tort and to be put into the position they would have occupied but for the injury caused by the defendant, insofar as it is possible to achieve this through a monetary payment: BG Checo International Ltd. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, 1993 CanLII 145 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 12, at p. 37; 2105582 Ontario Ltd. (Performance Plus Golf Academy) v. 375445 Ontario Limited (Hydeaway Golf Club), 2017 ONCA 980, 138 O.R. (3d) 562, at para. 58.
[22] Proof of causation is fact-specific: Clements v. Clements, 2012 SCC 32, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 181, at para. 8; Bowman v. Martineau, 2020 ONCA 330, 447 D.L.R. (4th) 518, at para. 12. As stated by Roberts J.A. in Bowman, at para. 10, citing James Street Hardware and Furniture Co. v. Spizziri (1987), 1987 CanLII 4172 (ON CA), 62 O.R. (2d) 385, at p. 404: “[T]he restoration of the plaintiff’s position requires an approach that is not unnecessarily complicated or rule-ridden but responsive to the facts of each given case”. . Palmer v. Teva Canada Limited
In Palmer v. Teva Canada Limited (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal comments on the nature of tort law, here as requiring damages:[1] The law of torts serves to compensate those who have suffered damage from the harmful wrongdoing of others. But not every instance of wrongdoing will support a viable cause of action. Compensable damage is an essential component to recovery.
|
