Debt is just not in most judge’s armoury of legal ideas
anymore on this side of the Atlantic: as a result of Fuller and Perdue, the
restitution, reliance, and expectation interests and corresponding damages
would be seen to occupy the field.
In fact, I never heard anything about actions for the agreed
sum until I came across it in English writings.
Jason Neyers
Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
Western University
Law Building Rm 26
e. jneyers@uwo.ca
t. 519.661.2111 (x88435)
Sorry to
sound like a broken record but… even setting aside the conceptual problems with
contrib as a defence to a contract damages, isn’t this a claim in debt (ONCA
Judgment references to “invoices” and a “debt collection claim” at [15]-[16],
[25])?
How do you
apply contributory fault to a debt claim?
Matthew Hoyle
Barrister
One Essex Court
This message is confidential and may be
privileged. If you believe you have received it in error please delete it
immediately and inform the sender immediately.
Regulated by the Bar Standards Board.
Dear Colleagues:
I just saw that the SCC has given leave in Arcamm
Electrical Services Ltd. v. Avison Young Real Estate Management Services LP,
2024 ONCA 925 (41673) (https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2024/2024onca925/2024onca925.html?resultId=c952bd55b59b422f9511629b4d3cbdf1&searchId=2025-02-14T15:35:58:945/58a67fd92fcd4a88be658926cab6eeba)
to address the issue of whether damages in breach of contract actions can
be apportioned based on a defence of contributory fault in general and more
specifically in the context of a summary judgment motion. Hold on to your
hat!
Here are the facts as prepared by the court:
4342 Queen St. Niagara Holdings
Inc. owns commercial property and Avison Young Real Estate Management Services
LP is its property manager. Following a power outage at the property, Arcamm
Electrical Services Ltd. provided emergency services to temporarily restore
power and then further services to permanently restore power. 4342 Queen St.
Niagara Holdings Inc. paid Arcamm Electrical Services Ltd.’s invoices for the
emergency services but refused to pay any further invoices. Arcamm Electrical
Services Ltd. commenced a claim for breach of contract. 4342 Queen St. Niagara
Holdings Inc. claimed contributory fault and sought an apportionment of
damages. Arcamm Electrical Services Ltd. was awarded summary judgment without
any apportionment. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and set aside the
summary judgment in part. It held the claim against Queen St. Niagara Holdings
Inc. should proceed to trial and Arcamm Electrical Services Ltd. can seek
apportionment based on the alleged contributory fault.
Here is what the ONCA said on this issue:
… I understand this
submission to rest on the assumption that contributory fault cannot be raised
as a defence to a claim in contract.
[41]
I reject this submission and the assumption which underlies
it. There has been a long-standing debate about whether the courts can
apportion damages in a breach of contract case based on a consideration of the
“contributory negligence” of the parties. While recognizing that the Negligence
Act, R. S.O. 1990, c. N.1 does not apply to actions in contract, a number
of first instance decisions in Ontario, beginning with Tompkins
Hardware Ltd. v. North Western Flying Services Ltd. (1982), 1982
CanLII 3160 (ON SC), 139 D.L.R. (3d) 329, 22 C.C.L.T. 1 (Ont. H.C.J.), have
applied the principle that damages in contract can be apportioned based on the
degree of fault of the plaintiff and defendant. See, for example, Ribic
v. Weinstein (1982), 1982
CanLII 3170 (ON SC), 140 D.L.R. (3d) 258 (Ont. H.C.), aff’d (1984), 1984
CanLII 1869 (ON CA), 47 O.R. (2d) 126 (C.A.); Treaty Group Inc. v.
Drake International Inc. (2005), 2005
CanLII 45406 (ON SC), 36 C.C.L.T. (3d) 265, 15 B.L.R. (4th) 83 (Ont. S.C.),
aff’d on other grounds, 2007
ONCA 450[2]; K-Line Maintenance &
Construction Ltd. v. Scepter Corp., 2009 CarswellOnt 7398, 91 C.L.R.
(3d) 73 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 161; Atos v. Sapient, 2016
ONSC 6852, at para. 389;
and Parkhill Excavating Limited v. Robert E. Young Construction Limited, 2017
ONSC 6903, at para. 212.
Appellate courts elsewhere in Canada have similarly held that damages in
contract cases can be apportioned based on fault. See, for example, Coopers
& Lybrand v. H.E. Kane Agencies Ltd. (1985), 1985
CanLII 125 (NB CA), 62 N.B.R. (2d) 1, (N.B. C.A.), at pp. 707-708;
and Doiron v. Caisse populaire d'Inkerman Ltée (1985), 1985
CanLII 95 (NB CA), 17 D.L.R. (4th) 660, 61 N.B.R. (2d) 123 (N.B. C.A.), at
p. 273.
[42]
In Tompkins, Saunders J. gave compelling reasons
for holding that the courts should allow for the apportionment of contract
damages. He said that negligence on the part of a plaintiff should have the
same effect in reducing damages regardless of whether the claim is brought in
tort or contract. In his view, the principle in tort cases that where a person
is part author of their own injury, the person cannot call upon the other party
to compensate them in full, applies equally in contract cases: at para. 34.
[43]
In Treaty Group, Ducharme J. thoroughly canvassed
the caselaw and academic writing on the subject and applied the reasoning
in Tompkins. At para. 70 of Treaty Group, Ducharme J.
concluded that not only could he apportion damages in a contract action to
recognize conduct on the part of the plaintiff that had increased their damages
but, in appropriate cases, apportionment was “required by fairness, equity and
justice”. I agree.
[44]
Finally, I note that in Cosyns v. Smith (1983), 1983
CanLII 1750 (ON CA), 146 D.L.R. (3d) 622, 25 C.C.L.T. 54 (Ont. C.A.)
Lacourciere J.A., writing for this court, considered the contributory fault
defence, describing it as “analogous to contributory negligence” but where the
Court holds the basis of recovery against the defendants to be contract, not
tort: at para. 1. He reviewed the reasoning of Saunders J. in Tompkins,
but concluded that it was not necessary to pronounce on the “attractive
conclusion” that Saunders J. had reached because the plaintiff’s conduct did
not amount to contributory negligence.
[45]
I agree with the Ontario first instance courts that damages
in contract cases can be apportioned based on fault. Accordingly, in my view,
Queen was entitled to defend the Arcamm Action on the basis of contributory
fault, and to seek to have the contractual damages Arcamm claimed reduced to
recognize Arcamm’s alleged conduct in increasing those damages.
Sincerely,
Jason Neyers
Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
Western University
Law Building Rm 26
e. jneyers@uwo.ca
t. 519.661.2111 (x88435)
Disclaimer
The information contained in this
communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by
the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been
automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber
resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security
awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities.
Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity,
human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a
more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.