The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding the respondent was entitled to incentive stock units upon early retirement pursuant to an Incentive Agreement.
The appellant argued the trial judge erred by applying the principle of contra proferentem without first attempting to resolve the ambiguity through other interpretive factors.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly identified the agreement as a contract of adhesion and properly considered the factual circumstances and commercial purpose before interpreting the impugned words.
The respondent's cross-appeal on damages was abandoned and dismissed.
