Earlier in 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a surprising decision involving the law of tenders. We believe contractors should be aware of the content of this decision which may very well have an impact on their future bids.
In this article, we will focus specifically on the claim by Development Tanaka inc. for interest and the additional indemnity by reason of contractual holdbacks Tanaka alleged to be unjustified. In order to address this claim, the Court of Appeal considered the scope of the terms used in the performance bond contract.
On April 13, 2007, the Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that evidence obtained by using subterfuge, a ruse or a ploy should not be rejected based on that fact alone. If the evidence is relevant and the means used to obtain it does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, the evidence must be heard.
Determination of share value is an important component of shareholder agreements. When dealing with private companies, there is rarely a market outside the company, especially for shares of a minority shareholder. A mechanism must be established in order to determine the value of the shares.
Companies incorporated before September 14, 2005 have until October 12, 2007 to comply with Regulation 45-106 respecting prospectus and registration exemptions, whether by amending their articles or by signing a security holders' agreement.
Certain owners of rental properties (and, consequently, their insurers) have not yet realized the sizable burden imposed upon them by the Civil Code of Québec such as the principle of the obligation of result owed by owners of residential property, an obligation which they cannot escape.
The notion of constructive dismissal has always been a source of debate. Fortunately, in 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada had the opportunity to rule on this notion
In trade-mark matters, to be famous is not enough! This is the conclusion recently reached by the Supreme Court of Canada in two very important unanimous decisions: Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin and Barbie.
What responsibility would you have if one of your guests were to leave the event drunk and injure a third party? The Supreme Court of Canada had to consider this issue in the case of Childs v. Desormeaux in a judgement rendered on May 5, 2006.
The thesis of this article is that the Supreme Court's view on these issues created too high a hurdle for functional product shapes to act as trademarks. The court did not recognize that the settled functionality doctrine is too inflexible and overlooked cases that presented a more nuanced view.