Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
AGT’s termination of a terminal services agreement was invalid for failure to comply with a consent agreement, though the court found later wood pellet detections could otherwise have justified termination.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, refusing to let the appellants advance a position on lease-back enforceability that was inconsistent with their trial theory.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge: an oral contract existed with sufficiently certain essential terms (investment by Lacroix and allocation of lots to Maisons Lacroix); the shareholders' agreement did not terminate the prior oral agreement because the exclusion clause was not brought to Lacroix's attention and would be unfair; specific performance was the only adequate remedy as damages were inadequate and the obligation was enforceable against the other investor corporations by ratification and conduct; and the costs award under Rule 49.10 was appropriate.
Source excerpt
The Notice of Arbitration filed April 24, 2019 was invalid because the arbitration clause required hearings to close within six months and Campbell did not advance the proceeding within that period; under the contract and s.51 of the Commercial Arbitration Act the arbitration has ceased to exist, the court will not appoint an arbitrator contrary to the parties' express time limit, and the court will not grant specific performance because a real dispute (duress defence) exists that should be resolved by arbitration or negotiation; accordingly both applications are dismissed without costs.
Source excerpt
The court held the land sale contract was unenforceable because the purchaser’s subjective conditions left no consideration; alternatively, the purchaser repudiated the deal.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upheld the summary trial, and enforced Habitat’s asset transfer clause after finding the disaffiliation process was properly followed.
The November 12, 2002 document was not a binding contract but an agreement to agree because Clause 13 and the genesis and aims of the transaction show the parties intended further negotiation and formal documentation, and essential terms material to the cooperative development (servicing arrangements, allocation of converted units and road frontage for Block 5) remained unresolved and could not be implied, so no enforceable contract existed.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed a claim over an alleged oral sale of a physiotherapy clinic, finding no binding contract because financing terms were never agreed.
The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed a new trial because irrelevant evidence may have influenced the trial judge's findings, with Idington J. dissenting.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the correspondence formed a sufficient memorandum under the Statute of Frauds and upheld specific performance of the land sale.
Explore more
