|
Contract - Appeals - SOR - Exceptions - General. Ontario (Transportation) v. J & P Leveque Bros. Haulage Ltd.
In Ontario (Transportation) v. J & P Leveque Bros. Haulage Ltd. (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an appeal, here from a decision granting summary judgment that held a 'tolling agreement' limitation [LA s.22] had expired.
The court considered the SOR for contractual interpretation, here a standard form contract:(1) Standard of Review
[12] Appellate courts generally review a lower court’s interpretation of a contract deferentially: Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 633, at paras. 50-52. Not so, however, where (a) the contract at issue is a standard form contract; (b) the interpretation has precedential value; and (c) no factual matrix specific to the parties exists to guide the interpretive process: Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 23, at para. 24.
[13] The parties agree, as do I, that the contract in this case is a standard form contract. It is used repeatedly, so this court’s interpretation has precedential value. The interpretive process does not hinge on a specific factual matrix, disputed findings of fact, or disagreement about the surrounding circumstances. Therefore, a correctness standard applies. Beyond the interpretation issue, the appellant challenges certain findings of fact made by the motion judge. On those points, it is agreed that the standard of review is palpable and overriding error. . 1284225 Ontario Limited v. Don Valley Business Park Corporation
In 1284225 Ontario Limited v. Don Valley Business Park Corporation (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal categorizes contractual errors of law for standard of review purposes:[4] Absent error, the application judge’s interpretation of the parties’ Parking Agreement is owed considerable appellate deference and is reviewable on a standard of “palpable and overriding error”: Heritage Capital Corp. v. Equitable Trust Co., 2016 SCC 19, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 306, at para. 21. However a correctness standard applies if the appeal involves the incorrect application of a legal principle, the failure to consider a required element of a legal test, or the failure to consider a relevant factor: Heritage Capital, at para. 22. . ING Bank N.V. v. Canpotex Shipping Services Limited
In ING Bank N.V. v. Canpotex Shipping Services Limited (Fed CA, 2020) the Federal Court of Appeal commented on when the standard of review for interpretation of a contract will be one of correctness:[27] In Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 633 at para. 50 [Sattva], the Supreme Court of Canada held that generally, the interpretation of a contract is a question of mixed fact and law subject to the standard of the palpable and overriding error. A few years later, in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 23 at para. 39 [Ledcor], the Supreme Court of Canada noted that there was an exception to this general principle. Contractual interpretation may still be reviewed as a pure question of law if the required interpretation involved a standard form contract, the interpretation at issue had precedential value and there was no meaningful factual matrix specific to the parties to help the interpretative process (Ledcor at para. 46).
|
