1. Why Are These Lessons for All Corporations? It would …
On September 13, 2013 the Supreme Court of Canada put …
In resolving disputes, courts generally insist on full disclosure of all relevant information, in order to gain a thorough understanding of all pertinent aspects of the matter at issue. But in a competitive market, how does a company involved in court proceedings protect confidential information that is vital to the success of its business and an essential part of its identity, its corporate DNA?
How should a “required quality” clause that identifies a specific brand of product be interpreted – as a performance specification or as a specific-product requirement?
Does a subcontractor have to make an equivalency request when its own brand of product is not the one specified?
Does a general contractor have to take into account information exchanged by subcontractors after it receives their bids?
These are all questions that are answered in the Court of Québec’s decision in Constructions Gagné & Fils v. Contrôles A.C. inc. which deals with the obligations of the parties in the context of public calls for tenders
On July 18, 2013, in the matter of Lachapelle c. Bell Canada1, Justice Émery of the Superior Court of Quebec dismissed on the merits a class action brought on behalf of all the subscribers to an internet service offered by Bell Canada (“Bell”) via telephone modem and who were required to assume all costs related to the hijacking of their modem.
The Supreme Court of Canada has finally spoken in the matter of Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39. Legal practitioners have been waiting for light to be shed on the issue of the potential for a conflict of interest in a situation where a lawyer sues a current client in an unrelated matter. The Court’s reasoning will allow lawyers to better identify the components of the duty of loyalty, but stops short of providing them with the precise answer they may be seeking.