Tercon Contractors v. British Columbia, 2010 SCC 4, February
12, 2010
In an important ruling arising out of a disputed public procurement
process, the Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously rejected the
doctrine of fundamental breach, substituting a three-stage test of
the enforceability of an exclusion-of-liability clause that
considers (i) whether the clause actually applies to the type of
breach that is alleged, (ii) unconscionability, and (iii) public
policy. However, before anyone celebrates the end of the ambiguity
that has pervaded this part of Canadian law since the split
decision in Hunter Engineering Co. v. Syncrude Canada
Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 426, it must also be reported that the
Court split five to four on the application of its new three-stage
test to the facts. The distinction between the majority and
minority reasons will be of interest to those drafting or
negotiating exclusion clauses, particularly in the context of a
request for proposals (RFP) or tendering process.
Background
The Supreme Court's decision essentially restored the trial
judge's ruling that the exclusion-of-liability clause contained
in a request for proposals issued by the Province of British
Columbia did not shield it from liability for breach of contract.
Under the terms of the RFP issued on January 15, 2001, only six
proponents - respondents to a previous Request for Expressions of
Interest - were eligible to submit a proposal. The RFP contained
the following exclusion of liability language:
[N]o Proponent shall have any claim for any compensation of any
kind whatever, as a result of participating in this RFP, and by
submitting a proposal each proponent shall be deemed to agree that
it has no claim.
The Province proceeded to award the contract to a bidder that,
while nominally compliant, proposed to enter into a partnership or
joint venture with a second company that was not eligible to
participate in the RFP. The Province was apparently fully aware of
the situation and, according to the findings at trial, took steps
to ensure that the involvement of the ineligible co-venturer was
not disclosed.
Tercon, the fully compliant runner-up, brought an action against
the Province and, having prevailed at the trial court level, was
awarded approximately $3.5 million in damages and prejudgment
interest. The trial judge found that the Province breached the
express provisions of the tendering contract with Tercon by
accepting a bid from another party that was not eligible to bid and
ultimately awarding the work to that ineligible bidder. The trial
judge also found that this and related conduct by the Province
breached the implied duty of fairness to bidders. Having
established the breach, she concluded that the exclusion clause did
not bar Tercon's recovery, finding that the clause was
ambiguous and such ambiguity was resolved in Tercon's favour
pursuant to the contra proferentem principle of
contractual interpretation. However, in setting aside the trial
decision, the British Columbia Court of Appeal recognized the
Province's breach but found the exclusion clause to be clear,
unambiguous and barred compensation for all defaults.
New framework for analysis established by SCC
Like the trial judge, the Supreme Court rejected the
Province's argument that, under such circumstances, a bid would
be compliant provided that only the first (eligible) company's
name appeared on the bid. The key issue was therefore the exclusion
clause. As noted above, the Court agreed on the analytical
framework but not on its application in this case. Rejecting the
fundamental breach doctrine outright, Justice Binnie - author of
the minority reasons but speaking for the entire Court on this
issue - set out the three-part test in paragraphs 122 and 123
[bracketed numerals added for ease of reference]:
[3] If the exclusion clause is held to be valid and applicable, the Court may undertake a third enquiry, namely whether the Court should nevertheless refuse to enforce the valid exclusion clause because of the existence of an overriding public policy, proof of which lies on the party seeking to avoid enforcement of the clause, that outweighs the very strong public interest in the enforcement of contracts.
Applying the new framework
The disagreement between majority and minority centred on
element [1] of the test. The majority - in reasons authored by
Justice Cromwell - responded to arguments that a sophisticated
commercial party such as Tercon should be held to the terms of its
bargain by stating that this presupposed the answer to the
"real question," which was "what does the exclusion
clause mean?" In its view, the clause either excluded this
type of liability or (at best) was unclear, inasmuch as it
encompassed only those claims that could be said to result from
"participating in this RFP." On the terms of the RFP, it
held, "participating in this RFP" implied participation
in a process that included only those who were eligible to
participate. The process that in fact ensued was therefore not the
RFP referred to in the agreement, but a different and illegitimate
process. Consequently the exclusion did not apply.
The majority considered this result - which was characterized by
the minority as resting on a "strained and artificial
interpretation" - to be reinforced by various other terms of
the agreement, by the statutory context, and by the nature of the
tendering process, particularly in the case of public procurement.
As Justice Cromwell stated, "It seems unlikely, therefore,
that the parties intended through this exclusion clause to
effectively gut a key aspect of the approved process." He
proceeded to note that other reported cases have involved exclusion
clauses that, in the majority's view, were not at all ambiguous
on this point, e.g. the clause in Hunter Engineering
itself:
In any event, the majority held, the Province's exclusion of
liability clause was at very least ambiguous, and on that basis
alone - applying contra proferentem - Tercon's claim
had to be upheld.
The minority view, as already noted, was that the majority had
convinced itself that there was ambiguity where none in fact
existed. It agreed with the B.C. Court of Appeal that
"participation" in an RFP clearly included submitting a
proposal in a process that involved an ineligible bidder. It
appears to have considered this to be virtually self-evident and
did not address the ambiguity and contra proferentem reasoning that
its colleagues had offered in the alternative. It also rejected
Tercon's arguments with respect to elements [2] and [3] of the
test, finding that there was neither unconscionability or a public
policy concern that would outweigh the public policy of enforcing
freely negotiated contracts.
What the decision means
The ruling is obviously highly significant in rejecting
fundamental breach once and for all. However, the majority's
position could be seen as bringing many of the same considerations
in through the back door, if it is interpreted as meaning that the
courts should be reluctant to interpret exclusion clauses in a
manner that would exclude liability for breaches that go to the
root of the agreement (i.e. because such an exclusion is unlikely
to have been the parties' intention). Nevertheless, it is clear
- provided that the language used is sufficiently unambiguous and
that the unconscionability and public policy tests are passed -
that exclusion clauses can be as broad as the parties desire.
Moreover, to the extent that the minority's view on the
applicable law can be considered as having been adopted by the
majority - something that is not entirely clear - it is useful to
note that there is a good deal of generally applicable language in
Justice Binnie's reasons strongly favouring the enforcement of
contracts as made, regardless of concerns about "equity or
reasonableness."
In general, providing that the applicability of the clause is
clear, the ruling appears to suggest that Canadian common law
courts have only a narrow jurisdiction to override contractual
terms freely negotiated by parties and that, absent some compelling
public policy reason (such as criminal conduct by the party
claiming the benefit of the exclusion clause or egregious fraud),
unambiguous exclusion clauses agreed to by sophisticated parties
will likely be enforced. The most important thing to take from the
ruling is that exclusion of liability clauses should be drafted
with great care and with due attention to these reasons.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.