An employee, having had one drink too many, harasses one of his or her co-workers. Another employee, an enthusiastic dancer, slips and hits his/her head on the corner of a table, resulting in a concussion. Two other employees, who don’t particularly care for each other, come to blows.
The Supreme Court of Canada recently handed down a highly …
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