Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 318
this regard, she relied on the decision in Marigold Hldg. Ltd. v. Norem Const. Ltd., [1988] 5
W.W.R. 710 (Alta. Q.B.).
[1193] I disagree. The Plaintiffs have submitted expert evidence based on facts and reasonable
assumptions supported by the totality of the evidence. These damages are not speculative. They
were the reasonably foreseeable result of the Defendant’s conduct. I will discuss the sufficiency of
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
the expert evidence below.
[1194] The Defendant independently addressed the issues of damages for breach of contract, lost
profit, remoteness, damages for negligent misrepresentation and the adequacy of the evidence
tendered by the Plaintiffs.
[1195] It is not necessary for me to review each of the arguments made by the Defendant in detail. I
have already referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in V.K. Mason where the
Court said that regardless of success in a claim for breach of contract or in tort, the approach to the
assessment of damages is the same.
[1196] Insofar as any aspect of the calculation of general damages is not clear-cut in the sense that
mathematical certainty is not available, I rely on the decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, in
Abraham v. Wingate Properties Limited [1986] 1 W.W.R. 568 (Man. C.A.). In Wingate the
Manitoba Court of Appeal was tasked with the assessment of damages after finding that a breach of
contract gave rise to damages. At pages 574 to 575, the Court said the following: