From: Catherine Valcke <c.valcke@utoronto.ca>
To: David Cheifetz <david.cheifetz@law.ox.ac.uk>
Harrington Matthew P. <matthew.p.harrington@umontreal.ca>
obligations@uwo.ca
Date: 14/01/2017 14:35:32 UTC
Subject: Re: Canada Supreme Court Greatest Hits in Contract

London Drugs v. Kuehne & Nagel
Tercon v. BC


From: David Cheifetz <david.cheifetz@law.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 5:44 AM
To: "Harrington Matthew P." <matthew.p.harrington@umontreal.ca>, "obligations@uwo.ca" <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: RE: Canada Supreme Court Greatest Hits in Contract

Dear Matthew and all

Kosmopoulos v. Constitution Insurance Co., [1987] 1 SCR 2, 1987 CanLII 75 on various aspects of insurance policy interpretation, insurable interest, lifting the corporate veil (whether to treat small corporations which were really only a different means of running a sole proprietorship / unincorporated family business differently than widely held corporations) and probably other things which I've forgotten for those reasons and not because 

(a) the "adjoining premises" in which the fire started was the basement of my father's new and use electronic components store (on Yonge St about 1/2 way between Bloor and Wellesley between Gloucester & Sherbourne, for those of you who know Toronto); and

(b) representing Kosmopolis - NOT the insurance company - I had the claim against Constitution almost settled for a significantly more than Mr. Kosmopolis would eventually net, essentially  because Constitution was happy to let the store owner keep the "smoke damaged" leather goods as part of the proposed settlement. He'd have then have had a "fire sale" at reduced prices. And his legal fees wouldn't have been significant; so

(c) the action wouldn't exist if the settlement had been completed.

The fire started occurred in late May 1977. I had been called to the bar (in Ontario) in April 1977. This was the mid 1970s on Yonge St in Toronto. The leather jackets Kosmopoulos produced in his store sold well for a very nice profit. They'd have sold better at a "reduced" price on account of "smoke damage". Some did smell, a bit of smoke but that smell would fade.  Unfortunately, the file got got "scooped" by another lawyer who promised K a lottery ticket. Constitution didn't think the new demands reasonable, denied the claim outright and the rest is bad history. 

The lawyer who scooped the file? He was subsequently disbarred for other less than honest conduct. I can't, now, recall if he was temporarily under suspension at the time the file was scooped, but he might well have been. 

I was already attempting to help keep Canada safe for the poor, downtrodden, put upon .... insurance companies and didn't yet know it. 


David Cheifetz
St. Hilda's College
Oxford

From: Matthew Campbell [matc99@hotmail.co.uk]
Sent: 14 January 2017 09:56
To: Harrington Matthew P.; obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Re: Canada Supreme Court Greatest Hits in Contract

Dear Professor Harrington


Perhaps Bhasin v Hrynew [2014] SCC 71, [2014] 3 SCR 494 <http://canlii.ca/t/gf84s> on honest performance and good faith would make your list. More experienced subscribers will probably clarify. The decision generated a great deal of comment far and wide.


Best wishes


Mat Campbell

PhD Student, University of Edinburgh 



From: Harrington Matthew P. <matthew.p.harrington@umontreal.ca>
Sent: 13 January 2017 16:36
To: obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Canada Supreme Court Greatest Hits in Contract
 
Dear Colleagues:

I’m doing a short piece on the Canada Supreme Court and the law of contract  with a bit of an historical focus.  I was wondering if you might be willing to share with me what you consider the court’s most significant contracts cases --- over the past 150 years ----  even if  the case has been overruled.

Thanks

Matt

-------------------------------
Matthew P Harrington
Professeur
Faculté de droit
Université de Montréal
514.343.6105
commonlaw.umontreal.ca
------------------------------