Agribrands Purina Canada Inc. v. Kasamekas et alPosted March 4, 2016
2011 ONCA 460; Lerners acted for the appellants in this breach of contract case. The trial judge held that the actions of some of the appellants gave rise to the tort of unlawful conduct conspiracy. The trial judge also held that another appellant was liable for breach of contract. On appeal, the finding of unlawful conduct conspiracy was set aside because the trial judge erred by ruling that a breach of convention or understanding can give rise to the tort. The damages for breach of contract were also varied by the Court of Appeal. On this issue, the Court of Appeal held that where there are several ways of performing a contract, the mode that is least profitable to the plaintiff and least burdensome to the defendant should be adopted for the purpose of calculating damages.