SCJ: You Snooze You Lose: Tower Restoration v. Attorney General of Canada, 2021 ONSC 3063 (CanLII)

Background.

Agreements between two sophisticated parties are generally looked at a different light by the courts. A court is likely to adopt a textual interpretation of the agreement. This contrasted to how legislation is generally interpreted nowadays, where a purposive interpretation is taken by the courts.

In this recent case, the Government of Canada accepted a bid from a proponent (“Tower”) for the replacement of all the windows of a federal penitentiary.

Tower was given a lump sum by Canada to complete the project.

Tower incurred further charges that it sought to obtain from Canada. Tower submitted a “claim” under the governing agreement between the parties. Canada rejected the claim and issued a final decision. Tower acknowledged receipt of the decision.

The terms of the dispute resolution clause required Tower to dispute the decision within 15 day of the decision. However, Tower failed to do so.

It now brings an action of which Canada brought a summary judgment to dismiss the case altogether.

Court.

The court decided that there were no material facts in dispute and there was no genuine issue for trial.

The court rejected Tower’s argument that there was an implied waiver to the dispute resolution deadline to challenge a final decision. The court reasoned that Tower’s evidence does not support such an implied waiver.

The court held that Canada adhered strictly to the terms of the agreement throughout the duration of the contract. It never once paid Tower outside of the strict processes contemplated in the GC, which included provisions related to dispute resolution in the event of disagreement.

There was no air of reality to Tower’s waiver argument, the court held. The court reasoned:

[22]        There is simply no air of reality to Tower’s waiver argument. Tower was a sophisticated commercial enterprise engaged in a multi-million-dollar contract with the Government. It knew that it would have to comply with the strict terms of the GC to receive additional payment totalling over $1,000,000. Most tellingly, Tower employed the process outlined in the GC to make the 2013 Claim in the first instance.

The court then went to stating that when Tower failed to provide notice of the dispute to Canada, it accepted Canada’s final decision. The court justified the importance of binding notice provisions in a contract through policy rationales. Holding that the purpose of binding notice provisions is to provide the other party with sufficiently detailed information to allow it to consider its options and take corrective action before the contractor pursues a claim.

Noting that such policies is important in disputes in government construction contracts, which involve sophisticated commercial enterprises, a competitive bidding and selection process, use of public funds, contracts of adhesion, and which have precedential value beyond the immediate parties: Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., [2016] SCC 37 at para. 37-43.

Takeaway.

The courts place a high standard on sophisticated commercial parties to follow the contract with precision. With good reason, contracts such as the one in this case must have taken months or even years to create. For a court to start setting aside displaces first contract law principles such as consensus ad idem and the many other principles that govern our contract law. Not to mention the time and energy invested to govern the parties.

www.ebadylaw.ca

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Appropriate Use of Expert Evidence on Summary Judgment Motions

As summary judgments become more and more the principal forum to resolve disputes in their entirety, rules around the evidence that can be used in these types of motions become paramount. Courts do allow expert evidence to come in as evidence on summary judgment motions so long as the Rules on expert evidence are complied with. In a recent case, a court criticized the defendant for not producing an expert report in line with the Rules . The report or part of it was brought in as evidence through a solicitor’s affidavit. The court found that this approach amounts to the expert evidence being insulated as there is no ability for the opposing party to cross-examine the expert. The court ultimately ruled in favour of the plaintiff as the defendant had an obligation to put their best foot forward and prove there is a genuine issue requiring trial. It had failed to do so.   Background A roofing company provided services to a city. A flood occurred and the city took the position th...
Read more

Mortgagee’s Reasonable Excuse Not to Provide Discharge Statement = Suspension of Power of Sale Rights

Once a mortgagor provides a request to the mortgagee to produce a discharge statement, the mortgagee must answer the request unless it has a reasonable excuse for its failure to do so. This is a requirement under the Mortgages Act . In a recent case, 2544176 Ontario Inc. v. 2394762 Ontario Inc, 2021 ONSC 3067, a court tenaciously quarreled with a situation where the mortgagee failed to produce a discharge statement without a reasonable excuse. The court ultimately with a lot of zig zagging around the issues finally concluded that the sale by that the mortgagee’s subsequent sale to a bona fide third party was invalid. The court raised the practical issues in voiding the sale. Mortgages have been signed. Monies have been transferred. How can the transaction be properly reversed? The court asked a lot of questions but gave very little answers. What we can take away from this decision is that a court will invalidate a sale where the mortgagee does not produce a discharge statement to a...
Read more

What Happens When Both the Vendor and the Purchaser Can’t Close?

In real estate transactions, especially in new home builds there are instances when both the vendor (builder) and the purchaser can’t close on the closing date (i.e., funds not being available). This scenario comes into play if the unwary vendor delays in a fashion that is not compliant with the agreement or the relevant legislation ( Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. O.31). Such acts can be construed as the ‘repudiating’ act which gives the purchaser the ability to elect to accept the repudiation and sue for damages. Alternatively, the purchaser can elect to affirm the repudiating act and in that case the agreement is not repudiated the agreement subsists. This effectively waives the purchaser’s right to terminate and sue for damages. But what happens if the vendor is in default and the purchaser can’t close? Starting from the basic legal expectation that for a purchaser to be entitled to sue for specific performance and/or damages, the purchaser must be ready, wi...
Read more