Canadian Appeals Monitor Information and Commentary on Upcoming and Recent Appeal Court Decisions

Tag Archives: contract

Does the Duty to Inform Apply Solely to the Contracting Parties?

Posted in Case Comments, Contracts

In Camions Daimler Canada ltée v. Camions Sterling de Lévis inc., 2017 QCCA 798, the Quebec Court of Appeal confirmed that the duty to inform that exists between contracting parties, which has been recognized as a general principle of Quebec contractual law since the early 1980s, may also apply to third parties, insofar as they might be impacted by the contractual relationship.… Continue Reading

The SCC Monitor (July 2016)

A Commentary on Recent Legal Developments by the Canadian Appeals Monitor

Posted in Charter of Rights, Civil Procedure/Evidence, Constitutional, Contracts, Insurance, Labour and Employment, The SCC Monitor

We may be into the lazy days of midsummer, but the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has been busy, releasing a number of important decisions in the areas of insurance, contract, labour & employment, constitutional, property, evidence and administrative law.



Since our last SCC Monitor post, the SCC has released the following judgments of interest:… Continue Reading

This Week at the SCC (21/11/2014)

A Commentary on Recent Legal Developments by the Opinions Group of McCarthy Tétrault LLP

Posted in The SCC Monitor

This was a busy week at the Court, with the release of one oral decision, and eight leave-to-appeal rulings, all likely to be of interest to Canadian businesses and professionals.

The Court granted an oral decision in British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia Public School Employers’ Association, 2014 SCC 70.  The SCC reversed the ruling of the BCCA on the grounds that the lower court had failed to give adequate deference to an arbitrator’s interpretation of a collective agreement, and had failed to recognize the differences between the purposes underlying pregnancy benefits and parental benefits.… Continue Reading

The Second Opinion: For Repudiating a Salon’s Lease, the BCCA gives the Landlord a Haircut

A Commentary on Recent Legal Developments by the Opinions Group of McCarthy Tétrault LLP

Posted in Features, The Second Opinion

Interesting issues of contractual repudiation and landlord-tenant law were recently addressed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Abraham v. Coblenz Holdings Ltd., 2013 BCCA 512.

The tenant utilized the rented premises as a hair salon specializing in “African hairstyling.”  The lease contained no express restriction on the business that could be conducted, and the tenant decided to begin offering additional (non-African) hair styling services, as well as nail, massage and tanning services.… Continue Reading

This Week at the SCC (23/08/2013)

A Commentary on Recent Legal Developments by the Opinions Group of McCarthy Tétrault LLP

Posted in The SCC Monitor

The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal this week in one case that is likely to be of significant interest to Canadian businesses and professions.

The decision appealed from is Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2013 ABCA 98, in which the Alberta Court of Appeal held that the corporate defendant was not under a duty of good faith in exercising a right of non-renewal when the term of its evergreen contract with the plaintiff came to an end.  The case will require the Supreme Court to consider when a duty of good faith should be implied in commercial contracts, … Continue Reading

The Second Opinion: A Trap for the Unwary – The Ontario Court of Appeal Addresses the Limitation Period for Contractual Indemnification Claims

A Commentary on Recent Legal Developments by the Opinions Group of McCarthy Tétrault LLP

Posted in Features, The Second Opinion

Imagine the following scenario. Party A contractually agrees to indemnify Party B against claims by third parties. Both Party A and Party B are then sued by Party C. Party B settles the claim with Party C and then seeks indemnification from Party A. Party A refuses to indemnify Party B. What limitation period applies to party B’s contractual indemnification claim against Party A? Does the general limitation period for breach of contract apply? Or does the special regime for contribution and indemnity claims apply? The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in a very recent decision that the latter regime, … Continue Reading

OCA Finds Judges Cannot Decide Issues Not Before the Court

Posted in Case Comments, Procedure

The latest round in a high-profile fight over National Hockey League sponsorship rights ultimately turned on a point of civil procedure and underscored need for judgments to be tied to the submissions of the parties.  In turn, this decision provides an answer to the question of what to do when the judge reaches a conclusion that was not urged by any of the parties.

Following the expiration of its sponsorship deal with the NHL, Labatt sought to negotiate a new agreement.  Labatt had a 60-day exclusive negotiation period.  Ultimately, the NHL sided with rival beer company Molson.  Labatt sought an … Continue Reading

Franchisor’s Implicit Obligation of Good Faith and Loyalty

Posted in Case Comments, Corporate Law

The decision in Automobile Cordiale Ltée v. DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc., J.E. 2010-164 raises the question of the implicit obligation of good faith and loyalty in an exclusive dealership contract.

Automobile Cordiale Ltée (the Franchisee) and DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc. (the Franchisor) entered into an agreement in 1994 whereby the Franchisee was granted exclusive right to sell and lease Jeep and Eagle vehicles in the city of St-Jérôme. Between 1996 and 2003, three dealerships located near St-Jérôme sold and leased Jeep vehicles although they had no rights with respect to the Jeep banner. The Franchisee advised the Franchisor of such behaviour … Continue Reading

Claims for Appropriation of a Foreign Corporate Opportunity: Do Ontario Courts Have Jurisdiction?

Posted in Case Previews, Corporate Law, Procedure

On August 23, 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal will hear an appeal on the question of whether Ontario courts have jurisdiction over a claim for appropriation of a foreign opportunity.

Decision Below

In Dundee Precious Metals Inc. v. Marsland, Corrick J. dismissed a claim by an Ontario mining company, Dundee, against an employee, Marsland, on the basis that the Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction. Dundee alleged that Marsland misappropriated a mining project in Serbia through the use of improper use of confidential information while working in Bulgaria.