Canada: Commercial Contract Law - David Lowe & Clark Sargent - Thinkhouse September 2016 (Video)

Last Updated: November 8 2016
Article by David Lowe and Clark Sargent

Most Read Contributor in Canada, October 2018

As always in the world of contracts there are lots of things to say. Here, David Lowe and Clark Sargent look at key developments over the last 12 months including key topics such as wilful default - and of course a little bit of Brexit.

This ThinkHouse session is also available as a podcast.


Clark Sargent: Today, we're going to have a look at some recent developments in contract law. We have got David Lowe, who is a contract draftsman par excellence here at Gowling WLG, and I am Clark Sargent.

With the contracts that David has drafted, if they get into any kind of commercial difficulty as they develop and progress, then I come along and try and help put them back on track. We are going to start with the interesting topic that is arriving on our shores: wilful default. 

David Lowe: That's right Clark, I think you and I are both seeing more commonly in contracts references to wilful default.

We didn't used to see that five or ten years ago but now we are seeing that, if a party has acted in wilful default, they have unlimited liability, the liability cap doesn't apply. I am worried about that because I think that undermines the contract.

We are not really very clear what wilful default is. I mean there was that case, wasn't there, 20 years ago, which said wilful default means an intentional reckless default but what does that really mean? And then I worry about the court having to look behind the scenes at what was the party's intention, it just seems to open the door.

Clark: You're right, the courts don't like doing that, do they, and for a long time they struggled with the concept of gross negligence, which pretty much in English courts they would like to say is just negligence, and we have looked at wilful default and we had the Albemarle and AstraZeneca case a couple of years ago, the courts saying we don't like the idea of having a concept of deliberate breach which follows on from photo productions hundreds of years ago which said we don't like the idea of fundamental breach and now we have got a wilful breach, a wilful default or a wilful breach, so the English courts are pushing back on it all the time.

But you're right, it's appearing in the contracts more and more and the courts might have to take that on, therefore, and that's one of the reasons why you might want to push back on it, (1) because we don't really know what it means yet, and (2) because actually somebody is going to have to take it through the courts, you know through the Court of Appeal and up to the Supreme Court to get a final determination on it, and nobody wants to be the party involved in that long running, expensive case.

David: So it sounds like you agree with me that the courts might apply a narrow interpretation.  It might be very limited to very particular deliberate types of breach or they might apply a broad one and none of us know and therefore ...

Clark: We don't know, do we, and that might take you back into, you know, looking at Arnold and Britton, which we were talking about a year ago, you know, the idea the courts look more closely at the words.

So actually if you're going to use wilful default, if you can get some kind of idea into the contract around, you know, what you have in mind by what wilful default means, and what the consequences of wilful default means, and the clearer you are, you know, the more likely you are of controlling and helping the Judge to come out with the conclusion that you had in mind when you were putting the contract together.

David: So talking of making sure the contract is clear, one of the things I have seen come up is, of course, most of my contracts have a clause saying you can't vary the contract except in writing but we all know in reality that isn't what happens.

They have seen some developments there, haven't they?

Clark: Exactly and there now, here we see for once the courts absolutely not doing what it says on the paper.

OK, so we have had two cases on that very recently, we were involved in the first one and were successful in it actually, which was great, at the Court of Appeal, Globe Motors and TRW. In that case actually TRW won in the Court of Appeal on the fact of no liability at all under the contract, so never had to get onto the oral variation point, but what the court there said, the Court of Appeal said was, this is all about party autonomy so if the parties agree on day one that they want to have variations only in writing, in fact on day five they can change their minds because they have party autonomy and agree to have a variation by conduct or orally, and actually it is implicit in that oral variation that they are orally varying at the same time the requirement for writing.

That is party autonomy.  Now, as I say in that Court of Appeal case, the point was obiter but it was literally followed a couple of days, weeks later by the MWB and Rock Advertising case, and in that case it was square on the point because the issue was it was a rent agreement and the tenant was in arrears and had they or hadn't they done an oral agreement to defer some of the rent? That was the point in the case, so bang square on, and there was in the rental agreement exactly that - no variations except in writing - clause, and the court followed Globe and TRW and said, yes they can vary the contract. So in fact in that case they could have varied the contract, they did vary the contract and therefore the claimant landlord was unsuccessful because there had been a deferment.

David: Right, OK. I think though I should still keep that clause in, shouldn't I?

Clark: I think you should keep that clause in and, actually, it is quite interesting in the Court of Appeal, they do um and argh about whether this is a good idea.

The reason for keeping that clause in is twofold. First is, if you actually write that contracts should only be varied in writing, that might actually encourage the parties to only vary the contracts in writing and that would help, wouldn't it, because it gives a certainty, and of course they would bring the contract back to you for the re-draft which is always helpful getting the re-draft right.

And secondly, there is this idea about, well, how much agreement do you need for the oral agreement? You know, are we going to get frivolous cases about, you know, I met him down the pub on Tuesday and, you know, after eight pints we agreed.

And it's absolutely about that evidential certainty, so it's an evidential point, but if you have written that clause into your contract you clearly need a pretty clear oral variation or a pretty clear fact of conduct.

David: Yes, so keep the clause in, encourage your teams to vary in writing and not rely hopefully on what they said on a phone call.

Clark: Yes

David: Got it.  And what about implied terms?

Clark: Ah, what about implied terms?

We've had a big case here which doesn't change the law officially but sort of does, which is the Marks & Spencer case, which talks to us about how you imply a term into a contract.

Back in Attorney General of Belize, back in 2009 I think it was, we had Hoffmann saying implying a term into a contract is all part of contract interpretation. So it's about objectively viewed, what should reasonably be within the contract taking into account the factual matrix at the time?

That was the test that we had and there was a sort of view that that was a bit of a loosening of the tests of implied terms and in Marks & Spencer, the courts are clear that they are not changing the law but they are reaffirming that it's a hard test for implied terms, so they say, first, it's not a matter of contract interpretation because contract interpretation is of course about the words that you've written into the contract, so you look at those express words.

When you imply a term having interpreted what you've written in the contract you can then come back and think about what you need to fill in the gaps that are missing and there they say OK, so it's not just about, you know, objectively viewed, but it's about what is necessary to give the contract business efficacy, the tests that we grew up with 25 years ago, so it's back to business efficacy and it's almost like the contract won't work without it.

David: Yes, so that gives us more confidence that what is written down in the contract is king, it's less likely the courts are going to go off and make something up.

Clark: Absolutely, and they're very clear and actually, to be fair, in Attorney General of Belize, but reaffirmed in Marks & Spencer and the cases that have followed it, the courts are very much saying implied terms is not about the court looking, you know, with the benefit of hindsight and deciding what is it the parties should have agreed, that isn't implied terms. It's back to business efficacy.

David: I guess we couldn't close a contract law update without at least touching on Brexit, which of course we don't even know what it is and when it will be and what impact it will have, but we know something is going to happen.

Clark, the approach I am taking in contracts with people is to encourage them usually to have break points, have shorter contracts, have regular price reviews because I'm worried that otherwise by writing a contract if there is a Brexit then, well then what? We have a chat? What happens if we have a chat and we fail to agree? Well that ends up giving a party, well we probably need to give somebody a termination right. How can we do that? We might as well just put a break clause in anyway because it's so uncertain.

Any views from you?

Clark: No, I agree with you. I think actually because you and I have looked at trying to write a Brexit clause that triggers on Brexit, but if you think Brexit means Brexit as we're being told by our politicians, you know, then Brexit's happening, so this isn't like a conditional issue, it's a fact.

Brexit is going to happen but we don't know when, but it's going to happen. So you're right, I think this idea about an annual review or an annual break or a two year break or a two year review, that's the best way to deal with it because, actually, that gives you some timeframe now with a certainty while we think about article 50 and you're going to end up with a break or a review around when the changes start to happen, you know, and we've also thought about, haven't we, whether actually you know, you shouldn't, you know if you're doing a 15 year programme or a 15 year supply contract would you want to break that into two or three year chunks or something?

Clark: It's that kind of idea to give you an ability to look at price again doesn't it, it's bound to be price isn't it?

David: Yes

Clark: Did you want to pick up in the context of price on penalties?

David: Oh yes, you're right, penalties obviously being the big Supreme Court judgment of the year and which there's been acres of alerts and commentaries by law firms about penalties.

I don't think we need to go over the facts here because they should be very familiar to everyone, but basically the Supreme Court of course has said, well, if you have something in the contract that looks like a deterrent of some description, if you park here and outstay your welcome you will get a fine, if you break this restrictive covenant then you will receive a reduction in the consideration for the deal by 50%, if you fail to deliver on time you will pay liquidated damages.

The courts are now saying, well, as long as that's not an unconscionable amount, not a ridiculous amount, then that is probably enforceable as long as you have got a good commercial interest in it and of course in that case the parking operator did have a good reason, had an interest in running the car park, the vendor of the business in Makdessi did have a good interest in preserving the value of the business they bought.

So I look at that case and think, actually, I don't think it's really changed the way I do anything now, I think people always were reasonably sensible because they knew if they weren't sensible it would be enforceable and that basically seems to be where the law has landed.

Clark: I think you're right on that, I don't see it changing how you would draft a contract and in fact I think it takes it away from, you know, a bit away from the litigation arena, because the courts, you know before where we had the genuine pre-estimate of loss tests, that's quite narrow isn't it, you know, you've got to get it, in that you've got to get it right mathematically.

It's got to be a calculation you can justify, whereas once you move out to extortion and unconscionable you've got good room for manoeuvre and actually that's the sort of target space that is much easier to hit, so you would expect parties to have come up in their contracts with about the right sort of figure, and if you got about the right sort of figure well, apart from in Makdessi which is really unusual facts, you know, because of the ridiculous size of the numbers involved.

The courts for eight or nine years have been saying, look, if the parties have had a reasonable stab then we are pretty comfortable with that, and it comes out especially in Makdessi, doesn't it, about you know, properly negotiated contract, you know, serious long discussions and negotiations, the parties decided what they wanted and they're stuck, you know they're going to get what they agreed.

David: Yes, and so I'm seeing people drafting contracts and liquidated damages clauses, late delivery clauses, service credits clauses. Actually nobody is changing anything.

Clark: Yes, yes, more of the same. Yes. A good decision actually. OK, thank you David.

David: Thank you.

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.

In association with
Related Topics
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