Your search

To understand common law contract doctrinal research methodology, one must first understand how contract doctrine came into existence and its enduring relevance. Historically, the common law was derived from judgments that focused upon proof of particularized facts and their fit to established writs. Contract doctrine emerged as a product of the Industrial Revolution's transformation of commercial and labor practices, the creation of new forms of property, and the new economic and social theories that shaped political discourse. In this chapter, the rise of common law contract doctrine is first described, and its enduring relevance to today's common law is articulated. This lays the foundation for an exploration into research methodology through three distinct examples: the incremental development by the Supreme Court of Canada of a doctrine of good faith performance in contract law; the interaction between legislature and courts in modifying contract doctrine concerning liability for innocent misrepresentations; and the place of party autonomy in correcting aberrant court decisions that are not in keeping with commercial realities. Through these examples, this chapter demonstrates how the common law navigates between the Scylla of certainty and the Charybdis of flexibility to keep common law contract doctrine relevant, but within what common law courts are constitutionally and legitimately able to do.

This paper explores from a Canadian perspective the awarding of damages for non-pecuniary losses that arise in commercial settings and asks the question whether there is any useful function performed by such awards. It is difficult to find cases that support such awards and thus if they are to be awarded, it will be advancing damages for non-pecuniary losses in a new direction. To justify such a movement, I suggest that the any development should be measured by two concepts: legitimacy - what is it that courts can legitimately do, and coherence - how does the award fit into a coherent and predictable legal system.I argue that from a purely compensation point of view, awarding compensation for a loss that is incommensurable does not make much sense. Only if the justification is vindication, deterrence or punishment is there merit in awarding more than compensation, but then, courts or legislatures should develop separate criteria to add quantification and to meet the standards of legitimacy and coherence.

The print edition The Law of Trusts, 3rd Edition, includes a PDF ebook. Look for your PIN code card inside the front cover. The Law of Trusts, 3rd Edition, edited by Mark R. Gillen and Faye Woodman, traces the development of resulting and constructive trusts to reflect a uniquely Canadian approach. Written by leading scholars in the field, this comprehensive casebook situates the law of trusts in context for its readers, yet extends beyond the normal scope to discuss specialized topics such as unjust enrichment, taxation, and succession planning. The third edition has been updated and expanded to include a new chapter on the Quebec trust. An overview of the taxation of trusts and beneficiaries has been added to make the subject matter more accessible, and an updated chapter on fiduciary obligations references the Galambos and Elder Advocates cases to reflect the clarified approach adopted by the SCC.

Remedies: Cases and Materials, 8th Edition is a comprehensive casebook that covers recent developments in both the law of damages assessment and the granting of equitable remedies. This publication examines all areas of remedies law in Canada, including damages, injunctions, specific performance, and equitable relief. Coming into its eighth edition, Remedies has become a reliable resource, providing updated case reports alongside detailed academic commentary. This edition was written by leading authorities on remedies, each of whom offer their expertise in specific areas. It also reviews recent Supreme Court of Canada cases and outlines how these decisions impact the law of remedies in Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada has accepted that in the common law of contract a high degree of stability is desirable and incremental changes are to be justified on an evident need to update common law principles to local conditions. In this chapter, the work of the Supreme Court of Canada is described in respect to the law of remedies for contract breach. In particular, the court has justified a slightly more regulatory function in its development of punitive damages and the award of damages for non-pecuniary damages in contracts characterised by power imbalances. The different tack taken concerning specific performance and its impact on mitigation and damages also reflects arguments over different market conditions prevailing in Canada when compared to the United Kingdom.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Google Inc. v Equustek has been criticized as amounting to an excessive claim of extra-territorial reach and possibly a way to bring the right to be forgotten to Canadian shores. In this comment, the author argues that the case is in fact an orthodox application of equitable principles, and one that stresses the importance of the notion that equity acts in personam. On occasion, equity does purport to exert an influence on a litigant’s conduct which takes place beyond the court’s geographical jurisdiction, but it does so, mindful of the practical limitations on enforcement of such orders.

English Abstract: The law has historically granted damages for some forms of non-pecuniary losses. In doing so, courts have freely admitted that there is imprecision in quantifying such losses and that there is no quantitative and objective calculus on pain and suffering. Against this background, new research on how hedonic losses are experienced by a victim provide an opportunity to review how non-pecuniary losses should be compensated. Some of this research suggests that experiences of anxiety, frustration and suffering may not affect a victim’s happiness as great as is presupposed in current models of compensation, and further, that its impact may also be ameliorated by the offering of an apology. In this essay, the author asks whether the law can incentivize tortfeasors to offer an apology as an element in mitigating compensatory damages for non-pecuniary loss.

In an ideal world justice would be dispensed instantaneously and the incursion of any form of interlocutory loss, irreparable of not, would be avoided. In an imperfect world we need to learn to live with law’s complexity, human frailty, evidential uncertainty, limited resources, and the inevitable passage of time that passes when these are engaged. Law, like any other human construct that takes thought to digital page, simply takes time. Just as an infinite number of monkeys placed before typewriters takes time to recreate the works of Shakespeare, time also passes between an applicant’s assertion of a wrong, and establishing the legal framework upon which those claimed rights are to be determined. Uncertainty and delay can arise in the need to establish a claimed right, as in where the right is novel or only in nascent form. Delay can emerge from the gathering of evidence particularly where the action is going to be determined largely on an affidavit record. Similarly, because the evidence is written and not subject to cross examination, it is open to divergent interpretations. Even if the best counsel can over come the aforementioned difficulties, they face resource constraints in terms of judicial and court time. Unlike health care where there are now standards for wait times there are no similar standards for court hearings. Between the ideal and the real, interlocutory relief exists as a form of paradoxical justice. It is not perfect justice because it is decided under less than ideal trial circumstances, yet it purports to do justice by minimizing a loss for which the applicant will never be able to recover. While an applicant has a right to a civil judgment following proof of a legal cause of action and meeting the requisite level of evidence, there is no equivalent right, outside one conferred by statute to jump the queue or to obtain an interlocutory injunction. The real world is also a dynamic one in which a variety of contextual issues frame the need and desire for interlocutory relief. Even at inception of the American Cyanamid test, Hammond identified how the difference in dealing with affidavit evidence on both sides of the Atlantic, i.e. allowing for limited cross examination in Canada, would impact upon the potential credibility of the evidence and thus the veracity courts would give to it. Post 1975, transformations in civil procedure, particularly simplified proceeding, case management, and status reviews, have all increased the control exercised by courts to hasten litigation through the adjudicative process and indirectly lessen the need for interlocutory relief. Buttressed by these procedural changes, some courts are now more willing to deny or suspend granting interlocutory relief in return for an undertaking from the parties to expedite the trial process, or to keep records that will make it easier to quantify damages. The ebb and flow of interlocutory injunctions is greatly influenced by all these externalities.

Over 20 years have elapsed since the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the English tripartite test for interlocutory injunctions: a serious issue to be tried, proof of irreparable harm and balance of convenience. This article is written in response to those who have argued that the concept of irreparable harm should not be viewed as a threshold requirement, but that it only forms a component of the balance of convenience inquiry. In contrast, the author argues that it is a central and necessary element of an applicant’s claim for interlocutory relief. Proof of irreparable harm is a necessary justification to access equitable relief and the burden placed upon the applicant to do so is a normal part of the civil litigation process. Canadian courts have not found this an unworkable approach, although the language used to describe the standard of evidential proof by some courts, namely “clear and not speculative,” may have been unwise and was not required by the Supreme Court of Canada.

In what follows I make five points that are potential ‘hot spots’, or are implications that flow from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Bhasin v. Hrynew 2014 SCC 71 [hereafter Bhasin]. They are presented in no particular order, but, in making these comments I am reminded of the comment: “He who lives by the crystal ball soon learns to eat ground glass” (Edgar R. Fiedler in The Three Rs of Economic Forecasting-Irrational, Irrelevant and Irreverent).

Over the last 15 years, English courts have developed the injunction contra mundum, one made against all the world and used primarily to prevent infringement of privacy and breaches of confidence. The order has attracted recent criticism because it is frequently sought by celebrities to suppress publicity about their private and family life. Such an order intersects a number of substantive areas of law, including: the developing tort of privacy; freedom of speech, the Internet and prior restraint; the open court principle; defamation; and the ability to enforce court orders across jurisdictional boundaries. This article addresses the difficulties of introducing such an injunction into Canadian common law and whether it is necessary.

This article draws on an emerging body of empirical research that indicates that parties place a greater emphasis in some situations on actual rather than substitutionary performance. It examines the case law on the enforcement of keep open clauses in Canada, Australia and other common law jurisdictions to highlight the disconnect between doctrinal orthodoxy on the enforceability of such clauses and party remedial preferences. The article explores the constraints of supervision and enforcement and concludes there is scope for enhancing party preference for performance through coercive remedies.

Canadian law sometimes allows gain-based remedies for certain wrongful acts. There is a strong suggestion that gain-based remedies are available in the common law provinces for torts and perhaps breaches of contract, but the courts have been hesitant. Common law provinces have also been willing to award gain-based remedies for breaches of confidence, in the court’s discretion. In the context of infringements of intellectual property rights, which is federal law, the legislation makes clear that gain-based remedies are available, although again this is in the discretion of the court. In both common law and Quebec civil law, in situations where one person is managing the property or affairs of another in a fiduciary capacity, improper gains must be surrendered, although it is arguable that the law ascribes rights acquired by the manager to the principal as the correct legal implementation of the parties’ relationship, rather than as a remedy for wrongdoing.

It is now an uncontroversial proposition that the choice of remedy following a determination of infringement of a substantive right engages distinct principles associated with the law of remedies and it is for the court to match remedial function to underlying substantive right. The law of remedies can be divided into a number of functional goals:Compensation – a measure of a monetary amount that will make good the plaintiff’s actual pecuniary losses or is seen as an adequate substitute to make good the plaintiff’s non-pecuniary losses.Deterrence – a remedy that is forward looking in that it is designed to deter the defendant, or similarly like-minded parties, from continuing or perpetrating the wrong in the future.Punishment – a remedy that is backward looking in that it is to exact retribution or societal condemnation on the defendant for the wrong perpetrated on the plaintiff.Restitution - Restoration – to give back to the claimant that which has been taken by the defendant.Disgorgement – To give up to the plaintiff that which has been acquired by the defendant through the perpetration of wrongdoing to the plaintiff. Coercion – a court order by way of injunction or specific relief that enforces the defendant to comply under pain of contempt of court.Self-help – Canadian common law is mostly antagonistic toward this form of relief.Vindication – a remedy designed to demonstrate to the world and to validate the plaintiff’s belief that the defendant has unjustly infringed its rights. Remedial functions are not categorical or mutually exclusive. For example, where everyone injured by a wrongdoer recovers compensation resulting in the full internalisation of the cost of wrongdoing by the tortfeasor, then, compensation can also achieve a deterrence function. In fact, this is a paramount reason used to support class actions in the area of tort law, in that it creates a procedural mechanism to maximise the internalisation by the tortfeasor of the true cost of their wrongdoing. A functional classification highlights that plaintiffs may well have concerns beyond compensation and deterrence. It also illustrates the strengths and weaknesses within any particular functional goal. For example, coercive remedies may effect deterrence better than damages; compensation compensates poorly for non-pecuniary losses; and vindication may be better achieved through resort to innovative remedies such as an ordered apology and publication than through damages, to name but a few. Similarly, a plaintiff does not necessarily pursue a single goal; rather, trade-offs are made. For example, the effect of a public retraction or correction of a defamatory statement lessens the damages payable on the basis that the plaintiff has been vindicated and his or her reputation restored, thereby lessening the need for compensation. Likewise, to order restitution – restoration, can also amount to compensation; may often be achieved by requiring disgorgement, and may effect punishment, deterrence and vindication all in the same process. The dominant remedial function in tort law remains compensation through an award of damages for pecuniary loss. However, tort actions that warrant an award of damages for non-pecuniary loss incur profound difficulties with respect to both quantification, as well as to function being pursued. Similarly, a number of emerging torts (i.e. the tort of misfeasance in public office, and intrusion upon seclusion ) do not fit comfortably into the compensatory function but appear to be more concerned with vindication and deterrence.