The applicant, Labatt, brought an application seeking an interpretation of a renewal provision in a previous sponsorship agreement with the respondent, NHL.
The application judge found that the parties had reached a new, binding sponsorship agreement, a position that Labatt had not pleaded or advanced during the hearing.
The NHL and Molson appealed.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that it was procedurally unfair and contrary to natural justice for the application judge to base his decision on a novel theory of liability that was never pleaded and to which the respondents had no opportunity to respond.
The judgment was set aside and the matter remitted to a different judge.
