Rarotonga, 2010

simonshields@isthatlegal.ca

Online Lawyer (Ontario)

Legal Guides
tenant / small claims / welfare (ontario works) / odsp / human rights / employment / consumer /
collection agencies / criminal injuries compensation / sppa (admin law) / animal cruelty / dogs & cats / wild animal law (all Canada)

home / about / Simon's Favorite Charity / testimonials / Conditions of Use

Get a Fee
Quote


THE LATEST WORD

... what's this?

Unconscionability

. Swampillai v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada

In Swampillai v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada (Ont CA, 2019) the Court of Appeal set out these basic elements of unconscionability:
[6] At para. 38 of Titus, this court endorsed four elements necessary for unconscionability:

1. a grossly unfair and improvident transaction;

2. the victim's lack of independent legal advice or other suitable advice;

3. an overwhelming imbalance in bargaining power caused by the victim's ignorance of business, illiteracy, ignorance of the language of the bargain, blindness, deafness, illness, senility, or similar disability; and

4. the other party knowingly taking advantage of this vulnerability.
. Redstone Enterprises Ltd. v. Simple Technology Inc.

In Redstone Enterprises Ltd. v. Simple Technology Inc. (Ont CA, 2017) the Court of Appeal sets out the considerations involved in determining whether a contractual deposit may be forfeited and when statutory (CJA) relief from forfeiture may be granted, here focussing particularly on the issue of unconscionability:
[15] Section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act provides simply that: “A court may grant relief against penalties and forfeitures, on such terms as to compensation or otherwise as are considered just.” The application judge referred to Varajao in specifying the two steps of the test as:

1. whether the forfeited deposit was out of all proportion to the damages suffered, and

2. whether it would be unconscionable for the seller to retain the deposit.

This is sometimes referred to as the test in Stockloser v. Johnson, [1954] 1 Q.B. 476 (C.A.). .....

.....

(2) Is the Forfeiture Unconscionable?

[18] The analysis of unconscionability requires the court to step back and consider the full commercial context.

[19] Deposits are commonplace in the operation of the market, especially for larger assets such as residential and commercial real estate. Their purpose was explored at learned length by Newbury J.A. speaking for a five-person panel in Tang v. Zhang, 2013 BCCA 52 (CanLII), 359 D.L.R. (4th) 104. At issue in the case was the forfeiture of a deposit of $100,000 on a residential real estate purchase of slightly more than $2 million. The trial judge relieved against forfeiture on the basis that the vendor had been able to re-sell the property for more than the original purchase price so that he had not suffered any loss. The court of appeal reversed the trial decision.

[20] While Newbury J.A. rejected the argument that simply labelling a payment as a deposit immunized it against the court’s equitable jurisdiction to relieve from forfeiture, she declined relief. She distilled several relevant principles from English and Canadian case law, at para. 30. Two are especially pertinent to this appeal:
A true deposit is an ancient invention of the law designed to motivate contracting parties to carry through with their bargains. Consistent with its purpose, a deposit is generally forfeited by a buyer who repudiates the contract, and is not dependant on proof of damages by the other party. If the contract is performed, the deposit is applied to the purchase price;

The deposit constitutes an exception to the usual rule that a sum subject to forfeiture on the breach of a contract is an unlawful penalty unless it represents a genuine pre-estimate of damages. However, where the deposit is of such an amount that the seller's retention of it would be penal or unconscionable, the court may relieve against forfeiture….
[21] The decision of this court in Peachtree II Associates-Dallas L.P. v. 857486 Ontario Ltd. (2005), 2005 CanLII 23216 (ON CA), 76 O.R. (3d) 362 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [2005] S.C.C.A. No. 420, is instructive, even though it involved stipulated penalty clauses, not deposits. The case explored the distinction between penalties and forfeitures.

[22] Justice Sharpe noted, at paras. 31-32:
[C]ourts should, if at all possible, avoid classifying contractual clauses as penalties and, when faced with a choice between considering stipulated remedies as penalties or forfeitures, favour the latter.

[C]ourts should, whenever possible, favour analysis on the basis of equitable principles and unconscionability over the strict common law rule pertaining to penalty clauses.
Accordingly, he pointed out that: “the strict rule of the common law refusing to enforce penalty clauses should not be extended” (at para. 33). The reason, he explained, is “the policy of upholding freedom of contract” (at para. 34).

[23] Justice Sharpe continued, noting that: “Judicial enthusiasm for the refusal to enforce penalty clauses has waned in the face of a rising recognition of the advantages of allowing parties to define for themselves the consequences of breach” (at para. 34). He cited in support Dickson J., who decried the prohibition of penalties as “blatant interference with freedom of contract”, and advocated treating both penalties and forfeitures under the rubric of unconscionability: Elsley v. J.G. Collins Insurance Agencies Ltd., 1978 CanLII 7 (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 916 at p. 937, 83 D.L.R. (3d) 1, 1978 CarswellOnt 1235, at para. 47 (WL Can).

[24] The point is well made in Union Eagle Ltd. v. Golden Achievement Ltd., [1997] UKPC 5, [1997] A.C. 514, by Lord Hoffmann for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council said, at p. 519 (A.C.)
[I]n many forms of transaction it is of great importance that if something happens for which the contract has made express provision, the parties should know with certainty that the terms of the contract will be enforced. The existence of an undefined discretion to refuse to enforce the contract on the ground that this would be "unconscionable" is sufficient to create uncertainty. Even if it is most unlikely that a discretion to grant relief will be exercised, its mere existence enables litigation to be employed as a negotiating tactic.
[25] I would agree that the finding of unconscionability must be an exceptional one, strongly compelled on the facts of the case.

[26] Can unconscionability be established purely on the basis of a disproportionality between the damages suffered and the amount forfeited? While in some circumstances a disproportionately large deposit, without more, could be found to be unconscionable, this is not such a case.

[27] As to quantum, Newbury J.A. quoted, at para. 24 of Tang, the statement of the Privy Council in Workers Trust & Merchant Bank Ltd v. Dojap Investments Ltd., [1993] A.C. 573 (P.C.), at p. 578:
In general, a contractual provision which requires one party in the event of his breach of the contract to pay or forfeit a sum of money to the other party is unlawful as being a penalty, unless such provision can be justified as being a payment of liquidated damages, being a genuine pre-estimate of the loss which the innocent party will incur by reason of the breach. One exception to this general rule is the provision for the payment of a deposit by the purchaser on a contract for the sale of land. Ancient law has established that the forfeiture of such a deposit (customarily 10 per cent of the contract price) does not fall within the general rule and can be validly forfeited even though the amount of the deposit bears no reference to the anticipated loss to the vendor flowing from the breach of contract. [Emphasis in Tang.]
[28]Justice Newbury cited one case in which a deposit at 20% was found to be reasonable, but added, at para. 27, the amount of the deposit must not be excessive. I agree, but I would be reluctant to specify a numerical percentage, since much turns on the context. I note, however, that in this case the deposit was slightly more than 7%. There is no evidence that this was a commercially unreasonable deposit.

[29] Where, as here, there is no gross disproportionality in the size of the deposit, the court must consider other indicia of unconscionability. This is an analysis the application judge did not undertake. By failing to do so, the he erred in law.

[30] The list of the indicia of unconscionability is never closed, especially since they are context-specific. But the cases suggest several useful factors such as inequality of bargaining power, a substantially unfair bargain, the relative sophistication of the parties, the existence of bona fide negotiations, the nature of the relationship between the parties, the gravity of the breach, and the conduct of the parties.
. Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc.

In Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc. (Ont CA, 2019) the Court of Appeal sets out the test for unconscionability in contract in Ontario:
[60] I pause at this juncture to address the proper test to be applied in determining whether a contractual provision is unconscionable. In Ontario, the existing case law establishes that there are four elements to the test. Those elements are set out in Titus v. William F. Cooke Enterprises Inc., 2007 ONCA 573 (CanLII), 284 D.L.R. (4th) 734, at para. 38, recently affirmed in Phoenix Interactive Design Inc. v. Alterinvest II Fund L.P., 2018 ONCA 98 (CanLII), 420 D.L.R. (4th) 335. They are:

1. a grossly unfair and improvident transaction;

2. a victim's lack of independent legal advice or other suitable advice;

3. an overwhelming imbalance in bargaining power caused by the victim's ignorance of business, illiteracy, ignorance of the language of the bargain, blindness, deafness, illness, senility, or similar disability; and

4. the other party's knowingly taking advantage of this vulnerability.
. Brown v. Hanley

In Brown v. Hanley (Ont CA, 2019) the Court of Appeal discusses the elements of unconscionability:
(i) Unconscionability

[27] The appellant submits that the statement of claim failed to plead the requisite elements of unconscionability, which in his view are: (i) a pronounced inequality of bargaining power, (ii) a substantially improvident bargain, and (iii) abuse of the inequality of power. He submits that the claim merely alleges an inequality of bargaining power and this does not in itself render a contract unconscionable. In his view, the motion judge erred in finding that additional facts, though not pleaded, somehow arose from vulnerabilities supposedly inherent to union membership itself. In particular, the appellant points to the motion judge’s reasons at para. 71:
I disagree with the Defendants’ submission that the Plaintiffs have only pleaded an adhesion contract and no facts upon which an abuse of power could be established. Those facts arise from the circumstance that the union members are notoriously in a situation of dependency, vulnerability, lack of independent representation, peer pressure, and reliance on the collective constituted by the union. And, as Justice Iacobucci noted in Berry v. Pulley (SCC), it must be borne in mind that a statutory labour relations scheme is superimposed over the contract between the member and the union and can create legal obligations. The contract, its terms, and the notion of the bargaining associated with membership must be viewed in this overall statutory and historic context.
[28] The appellant submits that this is a “remarkably pejorative” analysis that reflects derogatory assumptions about unions that were not expressly pleaded.

[29] Local 113 adopts the submissions of the appellant. In addition, it submits that the court should recognize that union constitutions are not ordinary commercial contracts, but are instead developed democratically over time by the members whom they bind. These constitutions should not be subject to the common law doctrine of unconscionability, because application of the doctrine would undermine their democratic, evolutionary nature.

[30] I do not agree. There is no reason to eliminate the doctrine of unconscionability in the context of this case. This court has previously held that the doctrine of unconscionability applies in disputes between a union and its members. In Birch, at para. 39, Armstrong J.A. said:
I can discern nothing in the unique contractual relationship between a union member and his or her union which would suggest to the court that we should refuse to apply the doctrine of unconscionability in appropriate circumstances. To suggest otherwise would be to deny the exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of the court to provide a remedy to individual members who have suffered an injustice at the hands of their union.
[31] In Ontario, the test for unconscionability contains four elements, as set out in Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., 2019 ONCA 1, 52 C.C.E.L. (4th) 10, at para. 60:
1. a grossly unfair and improvident transaction;

2. a victim's lack of independent legal advice or other suitable advice;

3. an overwhelming imbalance in bargaining power caused by the victim's ignorance of business, illiteracy, ignorance of the language of the bargain, blindness, deafness, illness, senility, or similar disability; and

4. the other party's knowingly taking advantage of this vulnerability.
[32] As confirmed by the Supreme Court in Berry v. Pulley, union contracts, as contracts of adhesion, entail an inherent inequality of bargaining power. The respondents allege that the International took advantage of this dynamic by incorporating into the Constitution what they describe as three fundamentally inequitable provisions: the 10-member veto on disaffiliation; the forfeiture of assets upon disaffiliation; and the suppression of disaffiliation-related activities through the threat of internal discipline. There is no indication that the respondents received legal advice or that they would have been able to negotiate the terms of the union contract had they received it: see Uber, at para. 68. The claim of unconscionability was therefore arguable and should not have been struck at the pleadings stage. The motion judge correctly disposed of this issue.



Law Society Number #37308N / Website © Simon Shields 2005-2020