Canada: Anticipating The Effects Of Bhasin v. Hrynew Through The Evolution Of Good Faith In Quebec

Bhasin v. Hrynew

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Bhasin v. Hrynew clarifies Canadian common law with respect to the doctrine of good faith in contractual relationships. The court held that good faith is a general organizing principle of the law of contracts and gives rise to a duty to act honestly in the performance of contractual obligations and in the exercise of contractual rights. How will this decision affect the day-to-day performance of construction contracts throughout common law provinces?

Justice Cromwell wrote the unanimous decision and explained that the duty to perform honestly accords with the reasonable expectations of commercial parties. In other words, the moral obligation to perform contractual obligations honestly has always existed, but it is now recognized as an enforceable duty in Canadian common law jurisdictions. The failure to act honestly in the performance of contractual obligations or in the exercise of contractual rights now amounts to a breach of contract. This duty will most likely take an increasing part in the litigation and the resolution of contractual disputes. Until the Supreme Court released the Bhasin decision, when a party suspected dishonest conduct on the part of their contracting party, they could allege fraud, misrepresentation, or malice but ran the risk of very serious adverse cost consequences if they were unable to prove the stand-alone causes of action at trial. In the future, we can expect a number of court decisions applying the "new" duty to a growing range of fact situations and identifying specific types of behaviours from which bad faith and failure to perform honestly can be inferred. This article briefly reviews the principle of good faith in Quebec, its application, and resulting duties in recent Quebec Court of Appeal decisions involving construction disputes. This review may provide a few clues on possible developments resulting from Bhasin and may also raise a few cautionary flags for the construction industry. The obligation to act in good faith was expressly codified in Quebec for the first time in articles 6, 7, and 1375 of the Civil Code of Quebec, which read as follows:


6. Every person is bound to exercise his civil rights in good faith.

7. No right may be exercised with the intent of injuring another or in an excessive and unreasonable manner, and therefore contrary to the requirements of good faith.


1375. The parties shall conduct themselves in good faith both at the time the obligation arises and at the time it is performed or extinguished.

Justice LeBel has identified a fundamental difference in contract law between Quebec and common law provinces in a conference he gave in 2011 at McGill University. In Quebec, contract law does not just flow from the pure meeting of the minds and contractual freedom as it does at common law. Instead, it is founded on the principle of contractual justice, because a free and equitable society requires a legal system that does not condone a "law of the strongest" but instead supports the principle that no one should benefit from their own wrongdoing. On this point, Justice LeBel quoted an article by late former Justice Gonthier:

In the execution of contractual obligations, the requirements of good faith protect against an abusive exercise of individualistic rights, however lawful the exercise of those rights may be in themselves. [...] Bad faith violates these values that form the basis of harmonious and mutually beneficial relationships in our society and runs counter to the spirit and core values of fraternity.

The current version of the Civil Code of Quebec was enacted in 1991 and came into force in 1994, but starting in the late 1970s, the Civil Code Revision Office and the courts were already considering the idea of an overarching principle of good faith in Quebec. In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision of critical importance, Houle c. Canadian National Bank, which recognized the doctrine of abuse of contractual rights and held that proof of malice is not necessary to establish abuse of rights. Instead, the parties' conduct is measured against the standard of the prudent and reasonable individual. The Supreme Court took the next incremental step in the application of good faith in contracts in Quebec, with the Bank of Montréal v. Bail ltée decision in 1992, when it held that a duty to inform arises from the obligation of good faith in the performance of contracts. This duty includes both the duty to inform and the duty not to give false information. The court held that there are three unique factors to construction contracts with high risks and high stakes, which affect the implied duty to inform:

  • the allocation of risks (The party assuming the risk (e.g., during tenders) must inform itself, but the other party must not mislead it by its action or inaction.)
  • the relative expertise of the parties (The party who designed the plans and specifications (or obtained them from their own designer) is more informed and has more expertise; its obligation to inform increases accordingly.)
  • continuous disclosure of information (The continuing contract formation during the lengthy performance of most construction contracts, with often numerous changes and extras, requires continuous disclosure of information to ensure continued meeting of the minds.)

Twenty years later, the implied obligations imposed on contracting parties in Quebec go as far as a positive obligation to cooperate. In the last two years, the Quebec Court of Appeal rendered three important decisions for the construction industry. In all three cases, Birdair inc. c. Danny's Construction Company Inc., Hydro-Québec c. Construction Kiewit Cie., and Dawco Electric inc. c. Hydro-Québec, the dispute arose from a familiar succession of events: the plaintiff contractor or subcontractor had to perform substantial changes in the contract or subcontract for additional work or unforeseen work and as a result incurred escalating costs, delays, and damages for which it claimed against the owner or general contractor. In a recent presentation at the 25th Construction Superconference in Montreal, Quebec, counsel John Murphy concluded from his review of these decisions that the obligation to cooperate includes, among others, the following:

  • acknowledgment of the facts specific to the project (delays and changes)
  • the diligent exchange of information before and throughout the project
  • cooperation between the parties before the start of the project or the start of work on any change in scope the protection of the parties' reasonable expectations
  • the intensification of the obligation relative to the project size (in scope, time and price) and to any inequalities between the parties.

In Bhasin, the court clearly set the general duty to perform honestly in common law provinces apart from the duty to cooperate in Quebec:

This means simply that parties must not lie or otherwise knowingly mislead each other about matters directly linked to the performance of the contract. This does not impose a duty of loyalty or of disclosure or require a party to forego advantages flowing from the contract. I am at this point concerned only with a new duty of honest performance and, as I see it, this should not be thought of as an implied term, but a general doctrine of contract law that imposes as a contractual duty a minimum standard of honest contractual performance.

This distinction between a positive "duty of disclosure" and the duty "not to knowingly mislead" may not remain as clear, depending on the fact situations brought before the courts in the future. As the Supreme Court noted in Houle, both withholding relevant information and providing false or misleading information generally represent two sides of the same coin.

The distinction between a duty to act honestly and the Quebec duty of loyalty may be a difference only in semantics. For example, in Kiewit, the contractor relied on the owner's representations regarding additional compensation for changes in the scope of work. Kiewit relied on these representations and continued to perform the additional work. The court held that Hydro-Québec could not, in good faith, rely on the four corners of the contract to avoid paying Kiewit, as doing so would represent a breach of its duty of loyalty.

Let us consider a similar situation in Ontario: unexpected conditions surface in the course of the project, an error in the initial design causes substantial changes in the scope of work, or the project is delayed for reasons outside of the control of the plaintiff contractor. The contractor can prove that the owner acknowledged that it would satisfy a claim for additional compensation but then refused to pay (disputing quantum or hourly rates, for example). A court would not find that the owner breached its duty of loyalty, because there is no such duty in Ontario. The court's reasoning, however, will likely be that there was a meeting of the minds between owner and contractor at the time, because the owner's only alternative was to watch the project come to a grinding halt, that the owner misled the contractor so the contractor would complete and finance the work. The court would then probably conclude that the contractor is entitled to just compensation and that the owner cannot benefit from its own wrongdoing.

Justice Cromwell carefully acknowledged that good faith contractual performance is a general organizing principle of the common law of contracts and merely imposes a new duty to perform honestly. He also repeatedly qualified this change as an "incremental change", suggesting that further applications of the principle of good faith may come in time and must be incremental. The evolution of the obligation of good faith and resulting duties in Quebec was also an incremental one, from the 1991 enactment of the Civil Code of Quebec until now. It would be prudent for owners, contractors, and subcontractors (or their lawyers) to consider some of the features of the duty to cooperate that John Murphy identified and start adjusting their contractual practices. For example, once an owner acknowledges legitimate delays and scope changes, that owner should make regular payments for those changes and delay costs rather than force the contractor to finance them in the expectation that "there may be back-charges" for deficiencies, contractor delays, or billing disputes. A practical and conservative approach would dictate that any act or omission that has the effect of giving party A to the contract an unfair advantage over party B and/or preventing party B from meeting its reasonable contractual expectations will be closely examined against the new duty to act honestly.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell,
Karakatsanis, Wagner JJ.
November 13, 2014

Originally published in Construction Law Letter Volume 31, No. 4

About BLG

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Singleton Urquhart Reynolds Vogel LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Singleton Urquhart Reynolds Vogel LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions