Contracts - Interpretation - Basics (2). Prism Resources Inc. v. Detour Gold Corporation
In Prism Resources Inc. v. Detour Gold Corporation (Ont CA, 2022) the Court of Appeal considered basics of contractual interpretation:
 The parties agree that the Supreme Court’s decision in Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53,  2 S.C.R. 633, sets out the governing principles of contractual interpretation. The relevant principles are also addressed in this court’s decisions in Weyerhauser Co. v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2017 ONCA 1007, 77 B.L.R. (5th) 175, at para. 65, per Brown J.A., rev’d on other grounds, Resolute FP Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 60, 444 D.L.R. (4th) 77; Ontario First Nations (2008) Limited Partnership v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp., 2021 ONCA 592, at para. 46, per Jamal J.A.; Ventas, Inc. v. Sunrise Senior Living Real Estate Investment Trust, 2007 ONCA 205, 85 O.R. (3d) 254, at para. 24, per Blair J.A.; and Dumbrell v. The Regional Group of Companies Inc., 2007 ONCA 59, 85 O.R. (3d) 616, at paras. 52-56, per Doherty J.A.. 2651171 Ontario Inc. v. Brey
 These principles were conveniently summarized by Brown J.A. in Weyerhauser, at para. 65. A judge interpreting a contract should:
i) determine the intention of the parties in accordance with the language they have used in the written document, based upon the “cardinal presumption” that they have intended what they have said; Brown J.A. added several observations about the proper consideration of the “factual matrix” by a judge interpreting a contract, at paras. 66-68, to the effect that it comprises, as stated in Sattva at para. 58, only “objective evidence of the background facts at the time of the execution of the contract... that is, knowledge that was or reasonably ought to have been within the knowledge of both parties at or before the date of contracting”. The “surrounding circumstances”, Sattva noted, at para. 57, “must never be allowed to overwhelm the words of that agreement” and cannot be used “to deviate from the text such that the court effectively creates a new agreement”.
ii) read the text of the written agreement as a whole, giving the words used their ordinary and grammatical meaning, in a manner that gives meaning to all of its terms and avoids an interpretation that would render one or more of its terms ineffective;
iii) read the contract in the context of the surrounding circumstances known to the parties at the time of the formation of the contract. The surrounding circumstances, or factual matrix, include facts that were known or reasonably capable of being known by the parties when they entered into the written agreement, such as facts concerning the genesis of the agreement, its purpose, and the commercial context in which the agreement was made. However, the factual matrix cannot include evidence about the subjective intention of the parties; and
iv) read the text in a fashion that accords with sound commercial principles and good business sense, avoiding a commercially absurd result, objectively assessed.
In 2651171 Ontario Inc. v. Brey (Ont CA, 2022) the Court of Appeal considered 'as a whole' contractual interpretation:
 The motion judge properly instructed herself that, as this court directed in Ventas, Inc. v. Sunrise Senior Living Real Estate Investment Trust, 2007 ONCA 205, 85 O.R. (3d) 254, at para. 24, a commercial contract should be interpreted “as a whole, in a manner that gives meaning to all of its terms and avoids an interpretation that would render one or more of its terms ineffective”.