Background:

• Business Failure: Reset Electronics, holding exclusive distribution rights for energy-efficient components, blamed Hydro One's delays in processing incentive payments for their business failure.
• Claim: Reset alleged that these delays caused customers to lose confidence in their products, leading to significant losses.

Trial Court Decision:

• No Contract: Reset did not have a contract with Hydro One.
• No Duty of Care: Hydro One neither owed nor breached a duty of care to Reset.
• No Causation: No direct causation between Hydro One’s actions and Reset’s business losses was established.

Appeal:

• Negligence Theory: Reset challenged the findings on duty of care, breach, and causation. It conceded there was no contractual relationship with Hydro One during oral arguments.

Appeal Court Findings:

1. Duty of Care:
   • Proximity and Undertaking: No relationship of proximity or undertaking by Hydro One to Reset.
   • Emails and Apologies: Insufficient to establish duty of care or reasonable reliance.
2. Breach of Duty:
   • Safety Concerns: Justified delays.
   • Comparable Performance: Approval times matched other distributors.
   • Deferential Review: Findings upheld.
3. Causation:
   • Credibility: Reset’s evidence on causation was not credible.
   • Customer Testimony: No evidence customers avoided Reset due to delays.

Costs:

• Appeal Costs: Hydro One awarded $35,000, agreed upon by parties.

Conclusion:

• Appeal Dismissed: The Court upheld the trial court’s decision and dismissed the appeal. Leave to appeal costs was refused.