Category Archives: Contracts

Novel Form of Agreement to Reserve Surface Rights Payments

By: Nigel Bankes

Case commented on: Schnell v Stene (Heidinger Estate), 2022 SKQB 146 (CanLII)

PDF version: Novel Form of Agreement to Reserve Surface Rights Payments

It is not uncommon for a vendor of agricultural lands in western Canada to seek to ensure that the vendor will continue to receive the benefit of surface rights payments payable under the terms of surface rights leases or right of entry orders. Perhaps the most common technique to achieve this result is by way of an agreement to assign rents. This will be effective so long as one is confident that such an agreement creates an interest in land that can be protected by way of caveat. In some jurisdictions legislation deems such an agreement to give rise to an interest in land, (see, for example, Law of Property Act, RSA 2000, c L-7 at s 63(1)(b)) whereas in other jurisdictions the point may be more debatable: (e.g. Alberta  prior to the 1985 amendment to the Law of Property Act: see Webster v Brown, 2004 ABQB 321 (CanLII) and Canadian Crude Separators Inc. v Mychaluk, 1997 CanLII 14841 (AB QB), [1998] 1 WWR 545. Continue reading →

Must Creditors be “Analogous to Minority Shareholders” to Obtain Standing for Oppression?

By: Jassmine Girgis

 PDF Version: Must Creditors be “Analogous to Minority Shareholders” to Obtain Standing for Oppression?

Case Commented On: Pricewaterhouse Coopers Ltd v Perpetual Energy Inc, 2021 ABCA 16 (CanLII)

A creditor seeking an oppression remedy must qualify as a “proper person” to make an application. While deciding whether to grant standing, courts have at times maintained that a creditor must be in a position analogous to a minority shareholder. In Pricewaterhouse Coopers Ltd v Perpetual Energy Inc, 2021 ABCA 16 (CanLII) (Perpetual Energy), the Alberta Court of Appeal objected to the shorthand of that analogy while appearing to confirm its substance. This post will address when and how creditors can get complainant status under the oppression remedy, and the effect of the comment in Perpetual Energy on that understanding.

Continue reading →

Consent Provisions in Long-Term Relational Contracts

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Consent Provisions in Long-Term Relational Contracts

Case Commented On: Apache North Sea Ltd v Ineos FPS Ltd, [2020] EWHC 2081 (Comm)

The drafters of long-term relational contracts often have to deal with the uncertainties of future developments. One technique for doing so is to accord one party to the contract (A) a power to propose some development or other while affording to the other party (B) a power to withhold its consent to the development, but disciplining the consent power by stipulating that B cannot unreasonably withhold its consent. Such provisions have long been common in the landlord and tenant context but they are also common in other commercial contracts, including oil and gas contracts. For a recent Canadian example see IFP Technologies (Canada) Inc v EnCana Midstream and Marketing, 2017 ABCA 157 (CanLII) and my post on that decision here.

Continue reading →

The Expansion of Unconscionability – The Supreme Court’s Uber Reach

By: Jassmine Girgis

PDF Version: The Expansion of Unconscionability – The Supreme Court’s Uber Reach

Case Commented On: Uber Technologies Inc v Heller, 2020 SCC 16 (CanLII)

Contracts of adhesion, or standard form agreements (SFAs) are oftentimes unfair. They are drafted by the stronger parties. Their provisions are dense and difficult to understand. The party signing does not have a say in their contents – they are take-it-or-leave-it agreements. They are usually lengthy and cannot feasibly be read in the short time it takes the parties to transact. Some of the more onerous terms are deeply embedded (hidden?) in the document. The contracts more often than not limit the liability of the drafting party at the expense of the other party. They ensure occupiers are not liable for negligence, including their own. And the list goes on.

We are not powerless against these contracts – common law and equitable doctrines protect weaker parties from harsh or onerous provisions. Is this enough? Probably not. Certainly the Supreme Court of Canada thought more should be done to protect weaker parties against SFAs in the case of Uber Technologies Inc v Heller, 2020 SCC 16 (CanLII). But instead of leaving this job to the legislature, as it should have, it expanded the reach of the doctrine of unconscionability without providing any substantial guidance or principles, thereby furnishing lower courts with an enormously powerful weapon to use against SFAs.

Continue reading →

Incorporating Waivers of Liability into Contracts

By: Jassmine Girgis

PDF Version: Incorporating Waivers of Liability into Contracts

Case Commented On: Apps v Grouse Mountain Resorts Ltd., 2020 BCCA 78 (CanLII)

Standard form agreements raise unique contracting issues. They are drafted by the more powerful party, they are take-it-or-leave-it agreements with no room for negotiation, and they typically contain waivers to limit the drafting party’s liability. And yet, most providers of services and/or goods use them to transact with the public. Given the fact that consumers rarely read these agreements before signing off on them, how can the requirement of consensus ad idem – i.e. a meeting of the minds – be established? Anticipated or expected terms do not give rise to this issue, but, if a clause is particularly onerous or unexpected, such as an “own negligence” clause, the drafting party must establish that the other party was notified of the clause, either through reasonable notice or previous experience. Otherwise, the clause will not be incorporated into the agreement.

These issues were raised in the recent BCCA decision in Apps v Grouse Mountain Resorts Ltd., 2020 BCCA 78 (CanLII) (Apps), a case involving a snowboarding accident at a British Columbia resort. After a summary of the decision, this post analyses the concept of knowledge when it comes to unsigned documents.

This post also argues that the current state of the law does not require as much as it should of occupiers, given the substantial benefit they derive from these waivers at the substantial cost to plaintiffs. It discusses the public policy choices involved in providing occupiers such broad scope to limit their liability, and proposes stricter rules to govern these kinds of clauses to better protect customers. Continue reading →