Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:07

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: Johnston v NEI

I would only add that the breach of contract claim for distress is much easier to bring in Canada in light of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Fidler which has liberalized recovery for these types of losses. Given that the House of Lords has yet to discuss Fidler, there is an argument that it might represent English law as well.

In response to Ken, doesn't the law allow you to bring every action of which you can prove the required elements?

----- Original Message -----
From: KA Oliphant
Date: Saturday, October 20, 2007 5:29 am
Subject: RE: ODG: Re: Johnston v NEI
To: Robert Stevens, "Jones, Michael"
Cc: Obligations Discussion Group  

--On 20 October 2007 08:20 +0100 Robert Stevens wrote:

Well I think I have discussed several reasons why the employee may wish to assert a claim based upon contract rather than rely upon a tort.

That wasn't my question. It's obvious why the employee would want to assert such a claim. But why should the law allow it?

--
Jason Neyers
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>