Canada Case Law

Crosslinx Transit Solutions General Partnership v. Ontario (Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal was allowed because the application judge committed a palpable and overriding error by finding that an internal March 25, 2020 email—which was not sent to Project Co—constituted the required notification under s.62.1(c) of the Project Agreement; the application judge's factual basis for triggering s.62.1(c) was reversed and the matter remitted for rehearing to resolve outstanding issues including good faith and Crown indivisibility.

Source excerpt

• Contract interpretation
• Emergency clause (s.62.1(c))
• Variation procedure (schedule 22)
• Notice requirements (s.61.1)
• Good faith in exercise of contractual discretion
• Crown indivisibility doctrine

Read case analysis

Entreprises A.B. Rimouski Inc. v. Canada

Court

Federal Court

Motion to set aside or vary a prior Federal Court order under Rule 399(2) was dismissed. The Court found no timely, newly discovered, or fraud-based basis for relief.

• Setting aside order
• Newly discovered evidence
• Fraud allegation
• Finality of judgments
• Standard of review of findings of fact
• Rule 399

Read case analysis

Cognos Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services)

Court

Federal Court

Motion for an interlocutory injunction to stop a government contract award was dismissed. The Court found no irreparable harm and held the balance of convenience was neutral.

• Interim injunction
• Certificate under s.30.13(4)
• Stop award order
• Citt remedies and enforcement
• Urgency and public interest
• Requirement for reasons

Read case analysis

Joy Oil Co. Ltd. v. The King

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the phrase “in any place” in oil price-control orders was ambiguous and meant the individual place of business, not a city-wide area.

• Price control
• Subsidies
• Crown liability
• Interpretation of orders-in-council
• Judicial review of administrative action
• Policy statements versus contractual offers

Read case analysis

The King v. Dominion Building Corporation Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the claim did not fall within s. 38 of the Exchequer Court Act, so the referral was unauthorized and the appeal succeeded.

• Jurisdiction
• Reference to exchequer court
• Order in council
• Res judicata
• Amendment of pleadings
• Ministerial authority

Read case analysis

Mayes v. The Queen

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed a contractor’s claim against the Crown for delay, holding the engineer lacked authority to bind the Crown and the contract excluded delay damages.

• Delay
• Inspection of materials
• Authority of government agents
• Exclusion clause
• Order in council requirement
• Crown-contracts

Read case analysis