In the recently released decision in Riddell Kurczaba Architecture Engineering Interior Design Ltd v. Governors of the University of Calgary, 2018 CarswellAlta 10, 2018 ABQB 11, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench applied three potential aids to the interpretation to a client-consultant contract: contra proferentem; post-contract conduct; and estoppel. The court also applied the limitation […]
Continue Reading →Alberta Court Applies Principles Of Contract Interpretation And Limitations To A Client-Consultant Contract
Posted by: Thomas G. Heintzman
29
Jan
Sattva Limits The Court’s Power To Review Arbitral Award Relating To The Exercise Of An Option; B.C. Court of Appeal
Posted by: Thomas G. Heintzman
1
May
The courts of British Columbia have recently wrestled with the question whether they can review the award of an arbitrator dealing with the exercise of an option. In Urban Communications Inc. v. BCNET Networking Society, the arbitrator and a single judge of the B.C. Supreme Court arrived at diametrically opposite conclusions as to whether the […]
Continue Reading →How Correct Does An Arbitrator Have To Be?
Posted by: Thomas G. Heintzman
22
Jan
What margin of error does an arbitrator have? Should an arbitral tribunal’s decision be set aside if it is legally incorrect? Or should a wider deference be shown, so that a decision will only be set aside if it is unreasonable, or perverse? And how detailed does an arbitral decision have to be? Can it […]
Continue Reading →