Reported as: 2018 SKCA 83
Docket Number: CA18082 , CACV 2931
Court: Court of Appeal
- Civil Procedure � Appeal
- Contracts � Breach � Damages
- Tort � Negligent Misrepresentation
Digest: The appellant appealed a Court of Queen�s Bench decision dismissing its claims of negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract against a commercial realtor. The appellant had the realtor act on his behalf to locate commercial premises for it. The realtor agreed to approach the City to see if a building for lease would be suitable for the appellant�s use and also to see whether a sprinkler system would be required. The realtor attended at the City and spoke with someone who he said conveyed that �it looks like sprinklers would not be required�. He never mentioned to the person that there would be renovations taking place at the location. A lease was signed in September. It was learned that a sprinkler system was required after the plaintiff appellant began renovations to the building. The sprinkler system cost $111,690.60. The appellants alleged that the realtor had breached his agreement to provide correct information regarding the need for a sprinkler system and, further in the alternative, that he had made false and negligent representation to them about the need for a sprinkler system in the building. The trial judge found that the appellant had satisfied four of the five criteria for negligent misrepresentation. According to the trial judge, the appellant did not establish that it had relied in a reasonable manner on the negligent misrepresentation. The trial judge also found that the realtor had satisfied the term of the contract that he act in the best interests of the appellant using the reasonable skill and care of an experienced commercial realtor. The trial judge concluded that the realtor had fulfilled his undertaking to raise the issue of the suitability of the property with the City and to report on that discussion. The issue on appeal was the trial judge�s consideration of the breach of contract claim.
HELD: The dismissal of the claim in contract against the realtor was set aside and judgment was entered against him. The costs ordered against the appellant were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Queen�s Bench for determination of damages and costs of...