The Litigator

THE LITIGATOR

Commentary on Law Affecting Business

The Litigator
AGM :: Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP

THE LITIGATOR

Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP
365 Bay Street, Suite 200  ·  Toronto, Canada
416 360 2800  ·  info@agmlawyers.com  ·  www.thelitigator.ca

SCC agrees to hear appeal in another contractual good faith case

In a decision released on July 18, 2019, Canada’s top court granted leave to appeal in yet another case involving the controversial and sometimes nebulous concept of good faith in the performance of a contract. Just last month, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision on contractual good faith in CM Callow v. Zollinger (See our article here).  And, this month, the SCC agreed to hear an appeal from the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s decision in Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District v. Wastech Services Ltd. regarding whether there is an obligation to exercise discretion under a contract in good faith.

In the Greater Vancouver v. Wastech case, a contractor hired to transport solid waste alleged that the Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District had allocated wastes between long-haul and short-haul destinations in bad faith and thus increased Wastech’s costs by millions of dollars. An arbitrator of the dispute found that the City had not given appropriate regard for Wastech’s interests or expectations and that  this amounted to bad faith under the contract. Both the B.C. Supreme Court and Court of Appeal disagreed – with the B.C. Court of Appeal finding that any duty of good faith must be tied to the expectations that arise from the express terms of the contract.

Both the CM Callow v. Zollinger and the Greater Vancouver v. Wastech cases deal with the ultimate impact of the SCC’s 2014 decision in Bhasin v. Hrynew – a decision that created a narrow good faith duty of “honest performance” on the part of contracting parties that litigants have since  tried to broaden and expand when it suits them, often at the expense of contractual certainty. Canada’s highest court is clearly alive to the need to further clarify – and hopefully restrict – the impact and application of its 2014 decision.

Kenneth A. Dekker
Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP

Kenneth A. Dekker

Kenneth Dekker, a partner of the firm, is a successful trial and appellate lawyer who is valued by his clients as a resourceful and practical litigation counsel.

Over more than two decades, Ken has litigated noteworthy cases in a range of fields that include class action defence, securities and broker-dealer litigation and regulatory defence, corporate and shareholder disputes (including oppression and winding up cases), defamation, civil fraud litigation, disputes over contracts, injunctions, professional liability litigation, employment litigation and cross-border litigation issues.

Ken has appeared before all levels of courts in Ontario, including the Ontario Court of Justice, the Superior Court of Justice, the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal for Ontario, as well as before the Supreme Court of Canada. Ken also represents and advises clients in regulatory matters before the Investment Industry Organization of Canada (IIROC), the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (MFDA) and the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC).

Ken has been recognized for Corporate and Commercial Litigation by Best Lawyers of Canada and has been given the highest available rating of AV, or pre-eminent, by his peers on Martindale-Hubbell.

Contributor's Archive

Contributor's Profile