Canada: SCC Rejects Doctrine Of Fundamental Breach In Context Of Exclusion Clauses

Tercon Contractors v. British Columbia, 2010 SCC 4, February 12, 2010

In an important ruling arising out of a disputed public procurement process, the Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously rejected the doctrine of fundamental breach, substituting a three-stage test of the enforceability of an exclusion-of-liability clause that considers (i) whether the clause actually applies to the type of breach that is alleged, (ii) unconscionability, and (iii) public policy. However, before anyone celebrates the end of the ambiguity that has pervaded this part of Canadian law since the split decision in Hunter Engineering Co. v. Syncrude Canada Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 426, it must also be reported that the Court split five to four on the application of its new three-stage test to the facts. The distinction between the majority and minority reasons will be of interest to those drafting or negotiating exclusion clauses, particularly in the context of a request for proposals (RFP) or tendering process.


The Supreme Court's decision essentially restored the trial judge's ruling that the exclusion-of-liability clause contained in a request for proposals issued by the Province of British Columbia did not shield it from liability for breach of contract. Under the terms of the RFP issued on January 15, 2001, only six proponents - respondents to a previous Request for Expressions of Interest - were eligible to submit a proposal. The RFP contained the following exclusion of liability language:

[N]o Proponent shall have any claim for any compensation of any kind whatever, as a result of participating in this RFP, and by submitting a proposal each proponent shall be deemed to agree that it has no claim.

The Province proceeded to award the contract to a bidder that, while nominally compliant, proposed to enter into a partnership or joint venture with a second company that was not eligible to participate in the RFP. The Province was apparently fully aware of the situation and, according to the findings at trial, took steps to ensure that the involvement of the ineligible co-venturer was not disclosed.

Tercon, the fully compliant runner-up, brought an action against the Province and, having prevailed at the trial court level, was awarded approximately $3.5 million in damages and prejudgment interest. The trial judge found that the Province breached the express provisions of the tendering contract with Tercon by accepting a bid from another party that was not eligible to bid and ultimately awarding the work to that ineligible bidder. The trial judge also found that this and related conduct by the Province breached the implied duty of fairness to bidders. Having established the breach, she concluded that the exclusion clause did not bar Tercon's recovery, finding that the clause was ambiguous and such ambiguity was resolved in Tercon's favour pursuant to the contra proferentem principle of contractual interpretation. However, in setting aside the trial decision, the British Columbia Court of Appeal recognized the Province's breach but found the exclusion clause to be clear, unambiguous and barred compensation for all defaults.

New framework for analysis established by SCC

Like the trial judge, the Supreme Court rejected the Province's argument that, under such circumstances, a bid would be compliant provided that only the first (eligible) company's name appeared on the bid. The key issue was therefore the exclusion clause. As noted above, the Court agreed on the analytical framework but not on its application in this case. Rejecting the fundamental breach doctrine outright, Justice Binnie - author of the minority reasons but speaking for the entire Court on this issue - set out the three-part test in paragraphs 122 and 123 [bracketed numerals added for ease of reference]:

[1] The first issue, of course, is whether as a matter of interpretation the exclusion clause even applies to the circumstances established in evidence. This will depend on the Court's assessment of the intention of the parties as expressed in the contract. If the exclusion clause does not apply, there is obviously no need to proceed further with this analysis. [2] If the exclusion clause applies, the second issue is whether the exclusion clause was unconscionable at the time the contract was made, "as might arise from situations of unequal bargaining power between the parties" (Hunter, at p. 462). This second issue has to do with contract formation, not breach.

[3] If the exclusion clause is held to be valid and applicable, the Court may undertake a third enquiry, namely whether the Court should nevertheless refuse to enforce the valid exclusion clause because of the existence of an overriding public policy, proof of which lies on the party seeking to avoid enforcement of the clause, that outweighs the very strong public interest in the enforcement of contracts.

Applying the new framework

The disagreement between majority and minority centred on element [1] of the test. The majority - in reasons authored by Justice Cromwell - responded to arguments that a sophisticated commercial party such as Tercon should be held to the terms of its bargain by stating that this presupposed the answer to the "real question," which was "what does the exclusion clause mean?" In its view, the clause either excluded this type of liability or (at best) was unclear, inasmuch as it encompassed only those claims that could be said to result from "participating in this RFP." On the terms of the RFP, it held, "participating in this RFP" implied participation in a process that included only those who were eligible to participate. The process that in fact ensued was therefore not the RFP referred to in the agreement, but a different and illegitimate process. Consequently the exclusion did not apply.

The majority considered this result - which was characterized by the minority as resting on a "strained and artificial interpretation" - to be reinforced by various other terms of the agreement, by the statutory context, and by the nature of the tendering process, particularly in the case of public procurement. As Justice Cromwell stated, "It seems unlikely, therefore, that the parties intended through this exclusion clause to effectively gut a key aspect of the approved process." He proceeded to note that other reported cases have involved exclusion clauses that, in the majority's view, were not at all ambiguous on this point, e.g. the clause in Hunter Engineering itself:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this contract or any applicable statutory provisions neither the Seller nor the Buyer shall be liable to the other for special or consequential damages or damages for loss of use arising directly or indirectly from any breach of this contract, fundamental or otherwise..

In any event, the majority held, the Province's exclusion of liability clause was at very least ambiguous, and on that basis alone - applying contra proferentem - Tercon's claim had to be upheld.

The minority view, as already noted, was that the majority had convinced itself that there was ambiguity where none in fact existed. It agreed with the B.C. Court of Appeal that "participation" in an RFP clearly included submitting a proposal in a process that involved an ineligible bidder. It appears to have considered this to be virtually self-evident and did not address the ambiguity and contra proferentem reasoning that its colleagues had offered in the alternative. It also rejected Tercon's arguments with respect to elements [2] and [3] of the test, finding that there was neither unconscionability or a public policy concern that would outweigh the public policy of enforcing freely negotiated contracts.

What the decision means

The ruling is obviously highly significant in rejecting fundamental breach once and for all. However, the majority's position could be seen as bringing many of the same considerations in through the back door, if it is interpreted as meaning that the courts should be reluctant to interpret exclusion clauses in a manner that would exclude liability for breaches that go to the root of the agreement (i.e. because such an exclusion is unlikely to have been the parties' intention). Nevertheless, it is clear - provided that the language used is sufficiently unambiguous and that the unconscionability and public policy tests are passed - that exclusion clauses can be as broad as the parties desire. Moreover, to the extent that the minority's view on the applicable law can be considered as having been adopted by the majority - something that is not entirely clear - it is useful to note that there is a good deal of generally applicable language in Justice Binnie's reasons strongly favouring the enforcement of contracts as made, regardless of concerns about "equity or reasonableness."

In general, providing that the applicability of the clause is clear, the ruling appears to suggest that Canadian common law courts have only a narrow jurisdiction to override contractual terms freely negotiated by parties and that, absent some compelling public policy reason (such as criminal conduct by the party claiming the benefit of the exclusion clause or egregious fraud), unambiguous exclusion clauses agreed to by sophisticated parties will likely be enforced. The most important thing to take from the ruling is that exclusion of liability clauses should be drafted with great care and with due attention to these reasons.

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 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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.