Page 45 - April2019Spectrum_Neat
P. 45

A SENSE OF YOUR DUTY




                Needless  to  say,  contracts  are  important  documents  in   At trial, the condos argued that this was a case of simple
                the  commercial  activities  of  a  business  –  they  provide   contract  interpretation  –  their  actions  fell  within  the
                the necessary framework for the relationship between the   confines  of  the  contract  which  allows  for  termination  on
                parties as well as a set of roles and responsibilities. While   10 days’ notice. The trial judge, however, found the condo
                the words written on paper are crucial to a well-functioning   corps’ actions unsettling such that it constituted a breach
                contract, it is not as widely understood that the conduct   of their duty to act honestly in their contractual obligations
                of  the  parties  in  the  performance  of  that  contract  is  as   to the landscaper.
                equally important.
                                                                The  condo  corps  appealed  the  trial  decision  and  were
                Good faith contractual performance is a general organizing   ultimately  successful.  The  Ontario  Court  of  Appeal
                principle of the law of contract . In various situations and   determined  that  the  condo  corps  actions,  although
                                        1
                types  of  relationships,  the  law  recognizes  the  obligation   unseemly,  did  not  breach  the  termination  provision  nor
                of  good  faith  contractual  performance.  In  other  words,   did they breach their duty of good faith. Rather, the condo
                inherent to every contract is a party’s duty to act honestly   corps availed themselves of a clause that the parties had
                and honourably.                                 agreed  to  at  the  time  of  signing  the  contract.  In  arriving
                                                                at this conclusion, the Court found that the duty of good
                The above principles were tested in a recent case arising from   faith simply means that parties must not lie or otherwise
                a maintenance contract. A landscaping company provided   knowingly mislead each other about matters directly linked
                winter maintenance services to a number of condominium   to the contract. This does not impose a duty of loyalty or
                corporations . The two-year contracts included a termination   of  disclosure  or  require  that  a  party  forego  advantages
                          2
                clause,  allowing  for  early  termination  on  10  days’  notice.   flowing from the contract.
                The condo corps had made the decision in spring of 2013
                to terminate the contracts but purposely waited until after   Many observers were pleased that the Court of Appeal held
                summer maintenance services were provided (in September   the line on the duty of good faith, thereby muting the dangers
                2013)  to  give  notice.  During  that  summer,  the  landscaping   of “ad hoc judicial moralism.” The Court emphasized the
                company performed “freebie” work in hopes that it would   need  for  commercial  certainty  in  contractual  relations.
                act as an incentive for the condos to renew their contracts   That said, given the inherently subjective analysis of what
                when the terms expired. Condo representatives responsible   constitutes good faith, it is important to be mindful of one’s
                for handling the contracts were aware of these services and   obligations and seek advice as necessary so as to avoid
                knew that the company was under the impression that the   any pit falls.
                contracts were likely to be renewed.





                1  Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, at para. 33.
                2  CM Callow Inc. v. Zollinger, 2018 ONCA 896.








                                           Emily  Durst  is  an  associate  in  Miller  Thomson’s  Kitchener-Waterloo  office.  She  is
                                           developing a broad practice in commercial litigation, insurance defence litigation and
                                           alternative dispute resolution. Emily maintains a collaborative approach to the practice
                                           of law while ensuring effective and client-focused advocacy.

                                           Emily Durst
                                           519.593.2395
                                           edurst@millerthomson.com              MILLERTHOMSON.COM





              vancouver  calgary  edmonton  saskatoon  regina  london  kitchener-waterloo  guelph  toronto  vaughan  markham  montréal

         www.cambridgechamber.com                                                                                  45
                                                                                                              Spring 2019
   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50