The Supreme Court of Canada has
concluded that Quebec's ASRA Farm Income Stabilization Program
is not a subsidy program governed by public law, but a contract
governed by private law principles under Quebec law. The Court has
also concluded that the contract is an innominate contract - not a
contract of insurance within the meaning of the Civil Code of
Quebec which must be interpreted based on the "reasonable
expectations of the insured". However, La Financiere agricole
du Quebec, which administers the ASRA Program, is nevertheless
required to exercise its contractual powers in accordance with the
requirements of good faith and contractual fairness. The Court
concluded that La Financiere did act in good faith and contractual
fairness when making a collective adjustment to the benchmark farm
income as a result of federal subsidies paid to farm producers in
2007, rather than making adjustments for these subsidies on an
individual basis. The Court upheld the Quebec Court of Appeal's
dismissal of a $14.9 million judgment granted by the Quebec
Superior Court in favour of 137 Quebec agricultural producers.
[Editor's note: Although this decision deals with a Quebec
income stability program under the Civil Code of Quebec, the
fundamental principles with respect to whether farm income
stabilization programs should be viewed as subsidy programs
governed by public law, or contracts governed by private law, and
the degree to which the discretion exercised by provincial agencies
which administer these programs are limited by the wording of the
programs, contractual fairness and good faith may apply to common
law income stabilization programs in other provinces as well.].
(Ferme Vi-Ber inc. v. Financiere agricole du Quebec, CALN/2016-018,  S.C.J. No. 34, Supreme Court of
In this companion decision to the
Ferme Vi-Ber case, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the claim
of a number of Quebec hog and piglet producers who argued that La
Financiere improperly reduced coverage for the years 2006 to 2008
based on La Financiere's alleged improper reliance on a
statistical study La Financiere used to establish the benchmark for
Quebec hog producers in 2006 to 2008. (Lafortune v. Financiere
agricole du Quebec, CALN/2016-019,  S.C.J. No. 35, Supreme Court of
The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that courts will generally support and uphold decisions of condominium directors because they are better positioned than judges to make decisions pertaining to their buildings.
According to the city bylaws in Calgary, the grading of lots for new buildings must be done properly so that the water never flows toward the new building or any other nearby properties, but away from those buildings.
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).