Last month, in 644036 Alberta Ltd. v. Kay McVey Smith &
Carlstrom LLP, 2018 ABCA 236 ("C.A.
reasons"), the Court of Appeal of Alberta seemed to
offer conflicting guidance on the assessment of damages for
economic loss where a plaintiff has advanced concurrent claims in
contract and tort. Upon examination, however, the Court of
Appeal's judgment speaks to the fundamental coherence of the
two doctrinal frameworks; regardless of which is applied, the same
result should follow — in principle, at least.
But that is not what happened here. Instead, in this case, the
majority and dissent differed fundamentally in how they understood
the nature of the plaintiff's claim, and of the economic loss
for which it was seeking damages. The lesson, in our view, is that
the outcome of an economic loss case featuring concurrent causes of
action is as likely to depend on how the claim is framed as on how
the applicable law is argued.