Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

• Author: Administrator
• Date: March 28, 2018

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed* on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

1. CBRE Limited v 1223962 Alberta Ltd, 2017 ABPC 114

[10] The issue at trial related to the timing of the “triggering event” in which the commission would be payable. The plaintiff argued that the triggering event for the commission to be payable was either when the conditions were waived (August 4, 2014) or when the sale closed (August 28, 2014). Either date would mean that the exclusion would be 50% of the commission as the dates were well within the 90 day extension period. This would mean that the plaintiff would be entitled to 50% of the commission payable. The defendant argued that the triggering event was when the offer was made (February 19, 2014), which would be within “the first 30 days” and thus the exclusion would be 100% of the commission, meaning the plaintiff would not be entitled to any commission.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. National Process Equipment Inc v Zahmol Properties Ltd, 2017 ABPC 31

[13] Given that the irrigation component was sold to the Defendant as part of the Plaintiff’s ordinary course of business, that the Plaintiff knew its intended purpose, and that the Defendant relied on the Plaintiff’s skill and judgment with respect to its design, the Defendant alleges the irrigation component is not reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was intended. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is in breach of the implied condition in section 16(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, RSA 2000, c S-2 (the Act) and, according to the Defendant, it is entitled to damages of $10,000.00 – the return of its deposit.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Hughes v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario, 2018 ONSC 1723

[51] The Plaintiffs allege that by entering into the 2000 Beer Framework Agreement, the Defendants created a monopoly by Molson, Labatt and Sleeman. The Plaintiffs allege that the monopoly eliminated price competition, enabling Brewers Retail, Molson, Sleeman, and Labatt to set prices for beer at supra-competitive levels. The Plaintiffs allege that the implementation of the 2000 Beer Framework Agreement resulted in higher beer prices, both to them and to members of the proposed class. The Plaintiffs allege that the 2000 Beer Framework Agreement is void as being an unreasonable restraint on trade and as contrary to public...