No “Magic Words” Required: Supreme Court of Canada Holds Exclusion Clauses Released Seller From Implied Statutory Conditions
On May 31, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. v. Pine Valley Enterprises Inc., 2024 SCC 20, which clarifies how contractual exclusion clauses are to be interpreted and when they can release a seller from implied conditions under Ontario’s Sale of Goods Act (the “SGA”).
In a 6-1 decision, penned by Justice Martin, the Supreme Court held the relevant exclusion clauses in the parties’ written contract were valid and negated the defendant’s liability under a condition implied by the SGA that, under an agreement to sell goods by way of a “sale by description”, the goods delivered must correspond with the description given.
In clarifying the test for enforcing exclusion clauses in a sale of goods contract, the Supreme Court held that rigid, formulaic analyses should be avoided and that a clause does not need to include any particular “magic words” to be enforced. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of interpreting the parties’ objective intentions at the time of contract formation when applying the modern principles of contractual interpretation to the exclusion clause.
Background
The plaintiff, Pine Valley, is a municipal parks contractor that was hired by the City of Toronto on a project that included the removal and replacement of existing topsoil with another topsoil more conducive to proper water drainage. Pine Valley agreed to purchase topsoil from the defendant seller, Earthco, for the original contract price of $66,168.
Earthco provided Pine Valley with lab reports from different topsoil samples taken about six weeks before the purchase and warned against purchasing the topsoil without updated test results. Since Pine Valley had already missed project deadlines, it waived its right to test the soil and insisted on immediate delivery.
After the topsoil was delivered and placed on the project site, water accumulation became an issue. The new testing revealed substantially more clay (which can block drainage) in the topsoil than the earlier tests had indicated.
The City required Pine Valley to replace the topsoil. Pine Valley then sued Earthco for $700,000 in breach of contract damages.
Lower Court Decisions
The core legal issue at trial was whether exclusion clauses in the parties’ agreement ousted a condition implied by the SGA that the topsoil delivered correspond with the seller’s description.
The trial judge found the parties’ agreement was a “sale by description” within the meaning of section 14 of the SGA. This means the statute imposed an implied condition that the goods purchased must “correspond with the description”. The trial judge also found Pine Valley did not get the soil for which it bargained, so there was a breach of the implied condition.
Importantly, however, the SGA, like other such statutes across the country, provides that parties may contract out of any right, duty, or liability that would otherwise arise by implication of law in a contract of sale. In this case, only an “express agreement” could oust the implied condition that the goods purchased must “correspond with the description.” In this respect, the parties’ contract contained the following clauses:
6) [Pine Valley] has the right to test and approve the material at its own expense at our facility before it is shipped and placed. […]
7) If [Pine Valley] waives its right to test and approve the material before it is shipped, Earthco Soils Inc. [sic]will not be responsible for the quality of the material once it leaves our facility. [emphasis added]
Even though the exclusion clauses in the contract did not explicitly mention statutorily imposed conditions or terms, the trial judge held, relying on the surrounding circumstances of the contract’s formation, that the clauses were nevertheless clear and unambiguous, and served to negate the seller’s liability under section 14 of the SGA. The trial judge held the clauses’ very purpose was to avoid the exact situation that transpired – a customer failed to test the soil and then attempted to hold the seller responsible for a loss due to unsatisfactory soil composition.
Accordingly, the trial judge dismissed the action and held Earthco was not liable to Pine Valley. Pine Valley appealed.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal and substituted a judgment requiring the defendant to pay the damages quantified by the trial judge.
SCC Decision
The Supreme Court allowed Earthco’s appeal and restored the trial judge’s decision. The primary issue at the Supreme Court was the legal requirements for excluding an implied condition pursuant to section 53 of the SGA.
The Supreme Court explained the SGA must be read in light of the common law principles set out in Sattva (on contractual interpretation generally) and Tercon (on interpreting exclusion clauses), explaining that exclusion clauses in sales contracts are “not categorically distinct or subject to different or stricter rules of construction”.
The first step in applying the Tercon test to this case is to determine whether there is an express agreement between the parties that is sufficient to meet the requirements of section 53. The Supreme Court held that an express agreement under section 53 requires that the parties have “expressly and unambiguously” used language that signals their intention to override the statute – silence or omission is insufficient. A court cannot imply, impute, or infer the parties’ intention to opt out of the statute based on presumed intentions. That said, the requirement is for an “express agreement”, not “express language” and there “is no requirement for ‘magic words”.
To determine whether there is an express agreement, a court must apply the principles of modern contractual interpretation, which involves, among other things, a consideration of the words used in the contract, the surrounding circumstances, and who and how sophisticated the parties are. The overall goal, according to the Supreme Court, is to “ascertain whether it was the objective intention of the contracting parties to exempt one party from statutorily imposed liability” [emphasis added].
If a court finds that an express provision was intended to operate in the circumstances at hand, the provision must be given its full effect unless it is found, at the second and third steps of the Tercon test, respectively, to be unconscionable at the time the contract was made, or contrary to public policy. The Supreme Court explained: “That is because it was the objective intention of the parties and because commercial certainty is best served by the law giving effect to their actual bargain. Searching for the parties’ objective intention furthers that purpose, whereas an overly technical and legalistic interpretation of exclusion clauses does not” [emphasis added].
Final Considerations
This decision shows the practical manner in which courts will be expected to interpret exclusion clauses in sale of goods contracts going forward.
Notably, the majority of the Supreme Court in Earthco did not overturn Hunter Engineering (a 1989 Supreme Court case which held that contracting out of statutory protections “must be done by clear and direct language”, and which case has been cited by hundreds of cases since it was rendered). Rather, the Supreme Court held Hunter Engineering was not binding on the issue at hand. The Supreme Court explained Hunter Engineering should not be read as “binding authority for the general proposition that ‘explicit, clear and direct language’ – a strict, formulaic requirement – must be used”, that it was not meant to establish “universal legal rules or rigid verbal formulas, especially when the parties have agreed to an exclusion clause”, and that the case must be read in light of the evolution towards the “practical, common-sense approach” set out by the Supreme Court in Sattva, Tercon, and their progeny.
Further for information concerning the Supreme Court’s decision, please contact any member of our Dispute Resolution Group.
Authors
Insights
-
Capital Markets
Clarification on Rules Relating to the Removal of Directors by Shareholders
In OneMove Capital Corporation v. Dye & Durham Limited (“OneMove v. D&D”), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Court”) held that shareholders may not submit a proposal under section… -
Capital Markets
Delaware Court Finds Advance Notice Bylaw Amendments Unenforceable, But Denies Relief Based on Dissident Shareholders’ Deceptive Conduct
The Supreme Court of Delaware’s recent decision in Kellner v. AIM ImmunoTech Inc. provides important guidance on the limits of a board’s authority to amend an “advance notice” bylaw in the context of… -
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
No “Magic Words” Required: Supreme Court of Canada Holds Exclusion Clauses Released Seller From Implied Statutory Conditions
On May 31, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. v. Pine Valley Enterprises Inc., 2024 SCC 20, which clarifies how contractual exclusion clauses are to… -
Capital Markets
Public Safety Canada Releases Updated Guidance on Modern Slavery Reporting Obligations
The Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (the “Act”) came into force on January 1, 2024, implementing enhanced reporting requirements for certain entities to… -
Crisis Management and Urgent Proceedings
Panoramic Next: Crisis Management 2024 - Canada Chapter
Mark Dunn and Sarah Stothart co-authored the Canada Chapter of Panoramic Next: Crisis Management 2024. Through a series of interviews with expert legal… -
Capital Markets
British Columbia Securities Commission Provides Guidance on Early Warning and Joint Actor Rules in Proxy Solicitations
Prompt, robust and wide dissemination of material information is a central tenet of Canadian securities laws. The early warning disclosure requirements contained in National Instrument…
Featured Work
-
Mergers and Acquisitions
Apotex Inc. acquires Searchlight Pharma Inc.
Goodmans LLP advised Apotex Inc. in connection with its acquisition of Searchlight Pharma Inc… -
Shareholder Activism
Browning West achieves landmark victory in Gildan Activewear proxy campaign
Goodmans LLP acted for Browning West, LP in the successful reconstitution of Gildan Activewear’s entire board, culminating in the reinstatement of CEO Glenn Chamandy… -
Capital Markets
Dye & Durham’s defence of requisition from Engine Capital
Goodmans LLP is acting for the board of Dye & Durham in connection with a defence of requisition from Engine Capital… -
Capital Markets
Board of WonderFi Technologies Inc.’s proxy defense from KAOS Capital and Mogo
Goodmans LLP acted for the special committee of the board of WonderFi Technologies Inc in connection with its defense of a proxy contest launched by KAOS Capital and MOGO. KAOS Capital is a… -
Restructuring
LoyaltyOne cross-border restructuring
Goodmans LLP is counsel to KSV Restructuring Inc. in its capacity as court-appointed monitor of LoyaltyOne, Co. in its restructuring proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act before… -
Mergers and Acquisitions
Coinsquare, WonderFi and CoinSmart close business combination
Goodmans LLP acted for Coinsquare Ltd. in its business combination transaction with WonderFi Technologies Inc. and CoinSmart Financial Inc…
News & Events
-
Mergers and Acquisitions
Chambers and Partners Once Again Honours Goodmans with Top-Tier Recognition
We are delighted to announce Goodmans LLP continues to receive top-tier recognition from Chambers and Partners in the Chambers Canada 2025 Guide.Recognition from Chambers and Partners is based on… -
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Goodmans Partners Once Again Recognized in Benchmark Litigation's 40 & Under List
Goodmans is pleased to congratulate Tamryn Jacobson and Michael Wilson who have once again been recognized in the 9th edition of Benchmark Litigation's 40 & Under List - Canada.Tamryn… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Jenene Roberts at IPIC's Refusals Motions in the Federal Courts – Strategies for IP Lawyers
Join Jenene Roberts on September 10th at 1:00 pm for the Refusals Motions in the Federal Courts – Strategies for IP Lawyers webinar with the Intellectual Property Institute of…