Corporate & Commercial Litigation

Andrew Wilson KC and Gavin Price comment regarding a key decision released by the Supreme Court.

The bid tender process is one that is ripe with rules. If your bid is late, even by only a few minutes, you are likely barred from participating in the bid tendering process.

The Alberta Court of King’s Bench issued judgment against a liquor agent for breach of the duty of good faith contractual performance, relating to obligations arising out of an unwritten contract upon termination of its engagement with a liquor supplier. This decision will have important impacts on the liquor distribution industry in Alberta and British Columbia.

If a Defendant plans to rely on a limitations defence, they must plead it. But what if an Action is commenced by Originating Application and the Respondent has no right to file a Statement of Defence? Andrea MacLean and Ripple Kaila discuss advice from the ABKB regarding how to advance a limitations defence in an Action initiated by Originating Application.

Giovanni Perri comments on a recent Alberta Court of Appeal decision that provides guidance on when the use of Civil Practice Note 7 is warranted.

Charlotte Stokes and Giovanni Perri comment on a recent Court of King's Bench decision about Rule 4.33.  

Alberta corporations are legal persons with rights to hold property, contract with others, and sue or be sued. Corporations are separate and distinct from their shareholders, directors, and employees, and in most cases, are uniquely responsible for liability arising from their actions.

The October decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in Annapolis Group Inc v Halifax Regional Municipality may cause governments to codify the previously held assumption that there will be no compensation for lands with rejected development permits.

In Hannam v Medicine Hat School District No. 76, 2020 ABCA 343, the Alberta Court of Appeal noted that despite the culture shift called for in the Supreme Court’s decision in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, the summary procedures provided for in Part 7 of the Rules of Court continue to be underutilized in Alberta. In emphasizing this point, the Court of Appeal urged both the judiciary and litigants to make more robust use of these processes.

How did the Ministerial Order of March 30, 2020, affect Rules 4.31 and 4.33? Gavin Price and Charlotte Stokes take a look at how the courts may interpret the Order's effect on what is sometimes referred as the "Delay Rules."

The SCC decision in Uber v Heller raises questions about how unconscionability will be litigated and what evidence may be needed and admissible in such litigation.

In Part 2 of our analysis on the recent decision of Uber v Heller, we discuss how the wide application of improvidence could lead to commercial uncertainty.

Notwithstanding a settling Defendants’ ostensible entitlement to a settlement surplus, the Court appears to have meaningfully limited the circumstances in which a settlement surplus will be recognized.

In the recent decision by the SCC in Uber v Heller, the majority confirms that the doctrine of unconscionability applies to all contracts. This undermines commercial certainty, as little guidance is provided for its application.

In the years since Sattva Capital Corp. v Creston Moly Corp. (2014), Canadian Courts have embraced the “modern” approach to contractual interpretation which requires a consideration of surrounding circumstances. That said, it is important not to stray too far from the words of the contract themselves.  

Laura Warner and Cassandra Sutter summarize how Rules 3.8 and 3.14 govern actions started by Originating Application.

If your company has received, or may invoke, force majeure or frustration claims, it would be wise to consider both the law of contract and the possible impact of insolvency law.

Geoffrey Boddy and Kaila Eadie examine Canadian, American and British jurisprudence regarding the issue of causation for force majeure claims.

In Part 5 of our Enforceability of Contracts series, Bryan C. Duguid QC, FCIArb and William Katz discuss the duty to mitigate the duration and effects of force majeure events.

In response to limited Court access and other restrictions, a Ministerial Order was issued in late-March to "push pause" on litigation. Gavin Price and Charlotte Stokes explain the Order's potential effects on deadlines.

What does your contract say about notice requirements? Geoffrey Boddy and Andrea MacLean take a look at when a Court may, or may not, relax on notice requirements.

Could your business be liable for failing to protect your employees and customers from COVID-19? Laura Warner and Sarah Bernamoff explore a recent lawsuit against and Arkansas Walmart and explain what businesses can do to protect themselves from liability.

How do you interpret a force majeure clause? Bryan C. Duguid QC, FCIArb and Kaila Eadie are your guides on interpreting force majeure clauses and the effect they will have on your business.

“What happens if I don’t have a force majeure clause in my contract, is a frustration claim still possible?”

“What are the Applicable legal doctrines I can rely upon?”

The Legislature has amended the Rules of Court by way of an Order in Council. David J. Marshall has noted the key amendments for civil litigators in his most recent article published on our COVID-19 Resource Page

The Coronavirus has affected businesses both large and small, leaving many unable to fulfill their contractual obligations. So, what happens when, as a result of COVID-19’s impacts, a party has no choice but to breach a contract? Can parties be required to compensate for non-performance in this circumstance?  Is there some legal way out?

How do you practice social distancing when documents need to be executed? Former partner at JSS Barristers, Oliver Ho explores the legislation around using electronic signatures.