Law360 Canada (July 9, 2024, 11:57 AM EDT) -- Appeal by Cox from trial judge’s finding that he repudiated a valid and enforceable real estate agreement with Precision Forest Industries Ltd., (Precision) and that their jointly retained solicitor, third-party respondent Shynkar, did not breach the standard of care expected of a solicitor in the circumstances. Cox, the vendor and Precision, the respondent, entered into an agreement for the sale of parcels of land in November 2003 with a possession date of December 2003. The parties jointly retained a lawyer but did not promptly provide him the agreement. In March 2004, Cox indicated he would not complete the sale. The main issues on appeal were whether the agreement was valid and enforceable, whether the respondent's discharge of a caveat constituted abandonment of its interest, and whether the jointly retained lawyer breached his duty of care. Cox submitted that the agreement incorrectly described the subject lands, therefore, the trial judge erred in finding the agreement was valid, the discharge of the caveat did not waive Precision’s rights, and Shynkar did not breach the standard of care. Precision argued that the trial judge correctly held that Cox breached a binding agreement, the discharge of the caveat did not affect that, and Shynkar fulfilled his professional duties....