Motion judge did not properly consider prospect of success of premature commercialization claim

Fraud and misrepresentation - Negligent misrepresentation (Hedley Byrne principle)

Plaintiff was Ontario corn grower and defendant was seller of corn seed containing genetically modified trait (“seed”). Seed had been approved for sale in North America but had not been approved by regulatory officials in China. Plaintiff commenced proposed class action against seller on behalf of itself and others similarly situated in Canada. Plaintiff alleged that defendant negligently commercialized seed prematurely without foreign approvals and made negligent misrepresentations about its application for approval of seed in China. Commercialization of seed by defendant when it had not been approved for import by Chinese regulators led to barring of all North American corn from Chinese market, leading to surplus of corn that could only be sold in North America, leading to fall in price of corn and losses to plaintiff and prospective class members. Plaintiff alleged losses resultant of defendant's neligence in negligent misrepresentations, breach of Competition Act, and premature commercialization of seed. Defendant was successful on motion to dismiss action on basis that it did not disclose reasonable cause of action. Plaintiff appealed. Appeal allowed in part. It could not be said on facts that plaintiff had no reasonable prospect of successfully establishing that defendant owed it duty of care not to negligently prematurely commercialize seed and motion judge erred in dismissing that claim. Plaintiff's reliance on defendant's representation was outside scope of proximity between it and defendant, thus there was no reasonable prospect that claim in negligent misrepresentation could succeed. Motion judge did not consider whether full proximity analysis and consideration of reasonable foreseeability would reveal reasonable prospect of success in establishing duty of care sufficient to support premature commercialization claim.

Darmar Farms Inc. v. Syngenta Canada Inc. (2019), 2019 CarswellOnt 15611, 2019 ONCA 789, Grunt Huscroft J.A., Gary Trotter J.A., and B. Zarnett J.A. (Ont. C.A.); reversed (2018), 2018 CarswellOnt 19926, 2018 ONSC 7129, H.A. Rady J. (Ont. S.C.J.).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca

Free newsletter

Our newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

Court denies former bencher's request for civil trial data that would show extent of court delays

Ontario Court of Appeal allows wife to collect from husband's debtors through garnishment

Ontario government overhauling labour and employment laws, including for legal profession

Court reduces sentence because Crown admitted disputed facts in guilty plea while accused absconded

Ontario Superior Court of Justice approves class action settlement over LifeLabs data breach

Court rejects privilege argument, orders law firm to produce full, unredacted adverse cost policy

Most Read Articles

Ontario government overhauling labour and employment laws, including for legal profession

Court denies former bencher's request for civil trial data that would show extent of court delays

Court reduces sentence because Crown admitted disputed facts in guilty plea while accused absconded

Ontario Superior Court of Justice approves class action settlement over LifeLabs data breach