Insights

When can the Court Grant an Equitable Relief from a Penalty Flowing from a Breach in Contract?

In Elchuk v Gulansky, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench found that a contract could not be terminated in the event of a minor breach. The plaintiff, Trican Transport (“Trican”), had a contract with the defendant to extract gravel from their land over a period of time. The defendants argued the contract had been breached when the plaintiff failed to deliver proof of insurance over the property on time in accordance with the contract’s terms. Trican argued the breach was only minor and there was no damage stemming from the breach, and therefore the contract should not be terminated. ..

Read More

When can the court grant an equitable relief from a penalty flowing from a breach in contract?

In Elchuk v Gulansky, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench found that a contract could not be terminated in the event of a minor breach. The plaintiff, Trican Transport (“Trican”), had a contract with the defendant to extract gravel from their land over a period of time. The defendants argued the contract had been breached when the plaintiff failed to deliver proof of insurance over the property on time in accordance with the contract’s terms. Trican argued the breach was only minor and there was no damage stemming from the breach, and therefore the contract should not be terminated. ..

Read More

When does the Limitation Period on a Fire Insurance Claim Commence?

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench in Aspen Village Properties Ltd. v Saskatchewan Government Insurance was tasked with determining if the limitation period in an action is computed at the date of the fire or at the date the insured discovers its claim is denied for coverage by the insurers. The Court held it was the latter. ..

Read More

The Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies the Application of the Tort of Interference with Economic Relations

The Supreme Court of Canada recently provided guidance with respect to the application of the tort of interference with economic relations. In Bram Enterprises Ltd v AI Enterprises Ltd (“Bram Enterprises”) the potential tortuous liability of parties privy to a commercial transaction was clarified.  ..

Read More

Limitation periods and The Farm Security Act

In Lozinski v Thiessen Bros. Farms Ltd. (“Lozinski”), Saskatchewan courts considered the interplay between limitation periods provisions contained in The Farm Security Act and The Limitation of Actions Act. Although The Limitation of Actions Act has been repealed and replaced by The Limitations Act, the relevant principles remain applicable. ..

Read More

New Amendments to The Builders' Lien Act

On March 12, 2014, The Builders’ Lien Amendment Act, 2013 (Bill 102) was given Royal Assent and came into force. In addition to some minor changes, three notable amendments were made to The Builders’ Lien Act (the “Act”): ..

Read More

Oil and gas joint venture not in violation of the Competition Act

The Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in 321665 Alberta Ltd. v. Husky Oil Operations Ltd. (2013 ABCA 221), which found that in certain circumstances, legitimate oil and gas joint ventures should not be considered anti-competitive action in breach of the Competition Act RSC 1985, c C-34. ..

Read More

Wrongly Obtained Injunction Leads to an Award of Solicitor and Client Costs

Barton v Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc was concerned with an appeal which determined damages payable pursuant to an undertaking in damages given to obtain an interlocutory injunction. Briefly, the injunction in question was obtained by PCS in 1993 and dissolved in 2003 with minimal steps taken in the litigation. The Honourable Mr. Justice Ottenbreit, for a unanimous Court on this point, upheld an award of solicitor-client costs against PCS. His Lordship noted that since PCS had discontinued the action proper, it had no right to argue that the injunction had been properly obtained. ..

Read More

Efficiency, Timeliness and Cost will Influence the Scope of Discovery

In July of 2013 the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench adopted new Rules of Court, and a recent decision provides some guidance regarding the practical application of the new Rules regarding discovery. This guidance will be particularly helpful to parties to current or future litigation in Saskatchewan. Under the old Rules of Court, the “broad relevance” test was used to determine the scope of production of documents and questioning. The new Rules of Court set out a test of just “relevance”. ..

Read More