Call Us Now

Blog

THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CLARIFIES THE STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS IN LEDCOR CONSTRUCTION LTD. V. NORTHBRIDGE INDEMNITY INSURANCE CO., 2016 SCC 37.

Posted On: July, 26 2017

In a September 2016 decision, The Supreme Court of Canada held that Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co. would have to pay for damages caused during window cleaning despite a clause excepting, “the cost of making good faulty workmanship.” In so doing the Court clarified that the standard of review for standard form contracts was “correctness.” This standard allows courts to make determinations without deference to administrative decision makers instead of focusing on whether or not a decision is correct at law.

Most contracts are held to the holding in Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp. which confirmed that contractual interpretation is a question of mixed fact and law subject to deferential review on appeal. The Supreme Court ruled in Ledcor v. Northbridge that the standard form nature of insurance policies creates an exception to this rule. In Ledcor, the Supreme Court relied upon the correctness standard because “the parties do not negotiate terms and the contract is put to the receiving party as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.”  This lack of negotiation reduces the need to rely on the relevance of the context of the contract. The court also justified their position with a policy argument holding that using a deferential standard could result in similar clauses being interpreted differently which would be undesirable with standard form contracts as they affect a large number of people. The need for consistency requires an interpretation based on “pure questions of law.”

After determining the standard of review in Ledcor, the Court proceeded to interpret the exclusion for “the cost of making good faulty workmanship.” The Court held that this exclusion was ambiguous, and relied on policy rules to reach their conclusion. Using Commonwealth Construction Co. v. Imperial Oil Ltd., the court found that the purpose of a builder’s risk policy is to provide broad coverage and reduce the need for litigation. As such, the reasonable expectations of the parties would be to have this damage covered.

This decision moves the burden of risk in construction projects from contractors to insurers. This decision would be of particular interest to insurers who may find themselves having to cover damage which they previously believed was excluded under their contract. 

 

No feedback yet

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.
BadExcellent
(For my next comment on this site)
(Allow users to contact me through a message form -- Your email will not be revealed!)

Contact Us

RECENT NEWS & EVENTS

5 STAR REVIEWS

  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto Wray James Reviewed by SB

    I just wanted to let you know how happy I am with the outcome and how very grateful I am for the guidance and support that you and your team provided.
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto Wray James Reviewed by Google user

    Patrick James is really a great lawyer who is smart and great to deal with. He's been our litigation counsel for over 5 years on several different matters. Patrick recently gave our company great strategic advice that resulted in a big commercial litigation win for our company. He's fierce, tenacious, and really cares about getting the best outcome for his clients.
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto Wray James Reviewed by Google user

    Patrick is a very good lawyer. He recently successfully defended a lawsuit against my company and has pursued several litigation claims for us in the past. All claims settled input favour. Mr. James is smart and quickly gives you great strategic advice. Patrick has been a real asset to our business.
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto Wray James Reviewed by Sandra L.

    Andrew Wray and Patrick James recently helped settle a difficult situation for me and my family. The results were exactly what we were hoping for. They are honest, strategic and will provide you with the best advice for you and your financial situation. I highly recommend them to everyone I know.
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto Wray James Reviewed by Mark C.

    Their team is highly focused and incredibly professional - from our experience it would be difficult not to believe that Pinto Wray James are one of Ontario's leading Firms in Labor and Employment law. The mindful client care and complete understanding of the case eased fears and the stress that comes with any legal dispute. Expect to find high level smartly crafted legal solutions at Pinto Wray James LLP - couldn't recommend more.
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto Wray James Reviewed by Sherry C.

    Patrick is knowledgeable, strategic, supportive, and patient. His guidance and advice helped me to maintain focus and to keep things in perspective. His experience and keen perception provides him with an edge that allows him to assess the situation, the people involved, and to offer a strategic resolution that works best for all involved. If you ever require legal advice and assistance, I highly recommend him and his team. They will be there 100% for you.
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto Wray James Reviewed by Christian V.

    Patrick is a fearless advocate for diverse clients. His strategic approach, and his empathy, are what set him apart as a litigator, and champion of the underdog.
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto Wray James Reviewed by A Google User

    I have no hesitation recommending Andrew Wray of Pinto Wray James LLP. He provided me with legal advice regarding an employment law issue and his council was practical and honest. Andrew's approach is very much one of blending legal excellence with good common sense. An excellent lawyer!
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto Wray James Reviewed by Larry S.

    Patrick listens to his clients and shows compassion, empathy and professionalism. He cares deeply that the individual that has been wrongfully terminated gets the best judgment available to him. I would not hesitate in recommending him to friends or family.
Submit