Remedies – ABLawg

Case Commented On: Nova Fish Farms Inc v Cold Ocean Salmon Inc, 2025 NLCA 28 (CanLII)

PDV Version: “Time is of the Essence” Clauses are Incompatible with Indefinite Time Provisions

A “time is of the essence” (TOE) clause is a boilerplate contract clause that renders a time limit or deadline in a contract to be a fundamental term of the agreement, entitling the other party to terminate the agreement if that term is breached, even in a minor way.

In Nova Fish Farms Inc v Cold Ocean Salmon Inc, 2025 NLCA 28 (CanLII), the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador decided that a TOE clause does not apply to an indefinite time provision in a contract. On January 22, 2026, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal this decision.

Limiting Contractual Liability for Breaching the Duty of Good Faith

By Jassmine Girgis

On February 24, 2026

In Contracts, Corporate / Commercial, Indigenous, Remedies

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case Commented On: 1401380 Ontario Limited (Wilderness North Air) v Hydro One Remote Communities Inc, 2025 ONCA 827 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Limiting Contractual Liability for Breaching the Duty of Good Faith

The contractual duty to exercise discretion in good faith applies to every contract, regardless of the parties’ intentions; parties cannot exclude the duty altogether. But what if they do not seek to exclude the duty itself, and instead seek only to limit the consequences of breaching it? Is that distinction legally meaningful? And is it permitted?

This post discusses how the duty to perform in good faith endures on both conceptual and practical grounds as long as there is liability for breaching it, even where that liability is contractually limited.

In 1401380 Ontario Limited (Wilderness North Air) v Hydro One Remote Communities Inc, 2025 ONCA 827 (CanLII), the Ontario Court of Appeal decided that parties may limit the scope of their liability for breach of the duty of good faith, and that doing so does not constitute contracting out of the duty itself.

Unlawful Production and Restitutionary Damages

By Nigel Bankes

On October 14, 2025

In Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas, Remedies

By: Nigel Bankes

Case Commented On: Signalta Resources Limited v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2025 ABCA 306 (CanLII) and Signalta Resources Limited v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2023 ABKB 108 (CanLII).

PDF Version: Unlawful Production and Restitutionary Damages

There are two principal substantive issues in this important unanimous decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal (referred to as ABCA decision). The first issue relates to the rules pertaining to the right of a Crown oil sands lessee (Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL)) to produce gas cap (or non-solution) gas in the course of producing oil sands (or bitumen) when the Crown has leased the natural gas rights in the same location (and indeed the same formation) to another party (Signalta). The second substantive issue relates to the legal consequences of the unlawful production of somebody else’s natural gas, specifically the assessment of damages for such unlawful production.

Lifting the Corporate Veil v Personal Liability Under the Oppression Remedy: When Directors Behave Badly, When is Each Remedy Appropriate?

By Jassmine Girgis

On May 16, 2023

In Corporate / Commercial, Remedies

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case commented on: FNF Enterprises Inc v Wag and Train Inc, 2023 ONCA 92 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Lifting the Corporate Veil v Personal Liability Under the Oppression Remedy: When Directors Behave Badly, When is Each Remedy Appropriate?

In FNF Enterprises Inc v Wag and Train Inc, 2023 ONCA 92 (CanLII), the sole shareholder and director of Wag and Train Inc (Wag and Train) had stripped assets from the corporation, causing the company to defeat its creditors. In an action brought by a commercial landlord, the Ontario Court of Appeal declined to lift the corporate veil because the director’s improper conduct was not the source of the corporation’s liability, but it did allow the appellants to pursue the oppression remedy against the director personally.

The Oppression Remedy Tests: Oppression v Unfair Prejudice & Unfair Disregard

By Jassmine Girgis

On October 31, 2022

In Creditors’ Remedies, Remedies

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case commented on: Wisser v CEM International Management Consultants Ltd, 2022 ABQB 414 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Oppression Remedy Tests: Oppression v Unfair Prejudice & Unfair Disregard

This blog broadly addresses how creditors can utilize the oppression remedy. It includes a specific discussion on the three tests in the oppression remedy. It will not address the issue of severance.

Category: Remedies Page 1 of 5

“Time is of the Essence” Clauses are Incompatible with Indefinite Time Provisions

Limiting Contractual Liability for Breaching the Duty of Good Faith

Unlawful Production and Restitutionary Damages

Lifting the Corporate Veil v Personal Liability Under the Oppression Remedy: When Directors Behave Badly, When is Each Remedy Appropriate?

The Oppression Remedy Tests: Oppression v Unfair Prejudice & Unfair Disregard