Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 352
[1327] In the present case, I have found that the Defendant breached its contract to supply the
Plaintiffs with an adequate supply of wood, once the Plaintiffs had acted on the Defendant’s
promise in that regard and built the mill.
[1328] In Whiten, the Supreme Court held that an award of punitive damages required the Plaintiffs
to show that they have suffered an “actionable wrong” that is independent of the causes of action for
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
which they will be compensated. In this action, I have found that the Plaintiffs have succeeded in
their claims for breach of contract, negligence and negligent misrepresentation.
[1329] It is my view that the conduct of the Defendant relating to the breach of contract here
amount to an “actionable wrong” as discussed in Vorvis and Whiten. At para. 79 of Whiten, the
Supreme Court said the following:
In the case at bar, Pilot acknowledges that an insurer is under a duty
of good faith and fair dealing. Pilot says that this is a contractual
duty. Vorvis, it says, requires a tort. However, in my view, a breach
of the contractual duty of good faith is independent of and in addition
to the breach of contractual duty to pay the loss. It constitutes an
“actionable wrong” within the Vorvis rule, which does not require an
independent tort. I say this for several reasons.
[1330] In my opinion, the conduct of the Defendant here was misconduct. It was conduct that
caused the breach of the contract. The breach was the failure to deliver an adequate supply of timber
for the Watson Lake mill. However, the misconduct of the Defendant was such that it frustrated the
fulfillment of her contractual obligations.