This summer, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal in Sinclair v Venezia Turismo, 2025 SCC 27. In a 5-4 ruling, the majority clarified how to determine a court’s jurisdiction simpliciter. This case has significant implications for businesses offering services to Canadians abroad.
In June 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in Canada Life Assurance Company v. Aphria Inc,. The Court's decision reaffirms that when a commercial landlord does not accept a tenant's repudiation of a lease and insists the lease remain in full effect, the landlord has no duty to mitigate the resulting damages. This decision adheres to the binding authority of Highway Properties Ltd v Kelly, Douglas and Co Ltd., where the SCC outlined four actions a landlord can take in response to a tenant's fundamental breach.
The SCC has granted leave to appeal the decision in Arcamm v Avison Young, 2024 ONCA 925. The Court is expected to determine whether contributory fault governs the apportionment of damages arising from breach of contract, and to provide, for the first time in over a decade, renewed guidance on realizing the culture shift envisioned in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7.
In Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc v Pine Valley Enterprises Inc, 2024 SCC 20 [Earthco], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) affirmed that common law principles of contractual interpretation apply to exclusion clauses under the Sale of Goods Act, RSO 1990, c S1 [SGA]. While “express agreement” sufficient to oust SGA liability must include an explicit statement of joint intention, it does not require precise legal terminology or “magic words” (Earthco, para 98).
In Quebec (Attorney General) v Pekuakamiulnuatsh Takuhikan, 2024 SCC 39 [PT], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC” or the “Court”) developed a test to determine when contracts between the state and Indigenous entities engage the honour of the Crown. Applying this test to tripartite agreements between Canada, Quebec, and the Pekuakamiulnuatsh First Nation, the Court found Quebec liable […]
In Trillium Mutual Insurance Company v Emond, 2023 ONCA 729 [Trillium], the Court of Appeal for Ontario (“ONCA”) upheld a term in an insurance policy which substantially limited the insured's recovery of rebuilding costs arising from compliance with regional building regulations. On appeal by leave [41077], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) will likely provide […]
Introduction The two presidents of a Québec-based insurance group betrayed an atmosphere of trust with the majority shareholders. In Ponce v Société d’investissements Rhéaume ltée, 2023 SCC 25 [Ponce] the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) showcased Québec’s requirement for courts to consider the spirit of contractual business relationships in deciding if a legal remedy is […]
The Ontario Court of Appeal (the “ONCA”) has provided fresh guidance on the applicable standard of review for a lower court’s interpretation of a standard form contract. Ontario Securities Commission v Bridging Finance Inc., 2023 ONCA 769 [Bridging] sheds light on the question of whether a standard form contract must have precedential value for an […]
In Anderson v Anderson, 2023 SCC 13 [Anderson], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) clarified the approach to considering non-presumptively enforceable domestic contracts. In partially departing from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, the Court unanimously ruled that while the overarching principles established in Miglin v Miglin, 2003 SCC 24 [Miglin], can be used in the […]
The Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) has cracked down on consumer contracts.