4 total
A 1965 nationalization agreement effected an assignment of a 1926 power contract, allowing Hydro-Québec to pass statutory levies onto the purchaser.
A forest products company challenged the right of a state-owned electricity distributor to invoke a price adjustment clause in a 1926 power supply contract, arguing that the distributor was not a party to that contract.
The majority held that a 1965 bilateral contract between the distributor and the original contracting party effected a temporally limited assignment of the 1926 contract, with the assigned party's advance consent validly given in the original agreement.
As a result, the distributor was entitled to pass on to the forest products company the taxes and charges levied upon it by provincial legislation as increases in the cost of electricity generated from water power.
The dissent maintained that the trial judge had committed no reviewable error in finding that the 1965 contract created a mandate rather than an assignment, and that the Court of Appeal should not have intervened by analyzing the contract on a theory never advanced at trial.
Class action authorization for alleged DRAM price-fixing was upheld; appeal dismissed.
The Court dismissed an appeal from authorization of a Quebec class action alleging international DRAM price-fixing and overcharges to direct and indirect purchasers.
It held Quebec courts had jurisdiction under art. 3148(3) C.C.Q. because economic damage was allegedly suffered in Quebec through a consumer contract concluded there.
The Court reaffirmed that authorization is a low-threshold screening stage and found an arguable case on fault, injury, and causation under art. 1457 C.C.Q. It accepted that passed-on overcharges can ground injury claims in Quebec civil liability and that aggregate loss allegations may suffice at authorization.
It also found adequate representation and no disqualifying conflict at this preliminary stage.
State immunity does not bar recognition of a foreign judgment where the underlying acts were commercial.
The appellant sought recognition in Quebec of an English judgment ordering the Republic of Iraq to pay costs arising from litigation over aircraft seized during the invasion of Kuwait.
Iraq claimed state immunity under the State Immunity Act.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the Act applies to applications for recognition of foreign judgments, Iraq's conduct in controlling the defence of its state-owned airline in the English commercial litigation fell within the commercial activity exception.
The Court allowed the appeal and permitted the application for recognition to proceed.
Bankruptcy court has national jurisdiction over estate disputes; transfer to another province requires sufficient cause.
The appellant, a company based in British Columbia, entered into financing agreements with a Quebec-based company that subsequently went bankrupt.
The respondent trustee in bankruptcy filed a petition in the Quebec Superior Court sitting in bankruptcy to recover assets held by the appellant.
The appellant brought a motion to transfer the proceedings to British Columbia, arguing the Quebec court lacked jurisdiction over the contractual dispute and relying on choice of law clauses.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over the dispute as it related to the bankrupt estate, and that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause to transfer the proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.