Sorting Out Whitby Landmark
description
Transcript of Sorting Out Whitby Landmark
![Page 1: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Sorting Out Whitby Landmark
Duncan W. Glaholt
![Page 2: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
?
WhitbyLandmark
Lac La Ronge
Doe v.Canadian
Surety
ThomasFuller
Citadel v.Johns
Manville
ElanceSteel
PaulD’Aoust
![Page 3: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
?
WhitbyLandmark
Lac La Ronge
Doe v.Canadian
Surety
ThomasFuller
Citadel v.Johns
Manville
ElanceSteel
PaulD’Aoust
![Page 4: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Doe v. Canadian Surety Co. [1937] S.C.R. 1
Bonds as a “specialty” One law for all sureties An undertaking given by the contractor
without the consent of the surety was a variation of the contract discharging the surety.
![Page 5: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
?
WhitbyLandmark
Lac La Ronge
Doe v.Canadian
Surety
ThomasFuller
Citadel v.Johns
Manville
ElanceSteel
PaulD’Aoust
![Page 6: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Thomas Fuller Construction Co. (1985) Ltd. v. Continental Insurance Co.,
[1973] 3 O.R. 202 (H.C.)
It is not a breach not to report minor delays.
Notice was necessary, but only when default was so serious that a declaration of default and a call upon the bonding company to perform is required.
![Page 7: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
?
WhitbyLandmark
Lac La Ronge
Doe v.Canadian
Surety
ThomasFuller
Citadel v.Johns
Manville
ElanceSteel
PaulD’Aoust
![Page 8: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Citadel General Assurance Co. v. Johns-Manville Canada Inc.
(1983), 147 D.L.R. (3d) 593 (S.C.C.)
Compensated v. gratuitous suretyship Only a prejudicial non-compliance is a
defense Even then, only to the extent of the
prejudice
![Page 9: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
?
WhitbyLandmark
Lac La Ronge
Doe v.Canadian
Surety
ThomasFuller
Citadel v.Johns
Manville
ElanceSteel
PaulD’Aoust
![Page 10: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Falk Bros. Industries Ltd. v. Elance Steel Fabricating Co. Ltd.
(1989), 62 D.L.R. (4th) 236 (S.C.C.)
Bonds as a class insurance The world post Citadel Failure to give notice is less serious than
failure to bring an action Relief from forfeiture can be granted under
Insurance Act in respect of delayed notices of claims.
![Page 11: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
?
WhitbyLandmark
Lac La Ronge
Doe v.Canadian
Surety
ThomasFuller
Citadel v.Johns
Manville
ElanceSteel
PaulD’Aoust
![Page 12: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Paul D’Aoust Construction Ltd. v. Markel Insurance Company of Canada
(2001), 208 D.L.R. (4th) 225 (S.C.C.)
Bonds as a “specialty” again To be effective, an original signed
bond must be delivered.
![Page 13: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
?
WhitbyLandmark
Lac La Ronge
Doe v.Canadian
Surety
ThomasFuller
Citadel v.Johns
Manville
ElanceSteel
PaulD’Aoust
![Page 14: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Whitby Landmark Developments Inc. v. Mollenhauer Construction Ltd. (2002), 4
C.L.R. (3d) 1 (Ont. S.C.J.)
• Bonds as a contract
• Failure to give notice of default fatal
• Bond extends to cost savings provisions of contract
![Page 15: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Justice Lamek:
“If Zurich intended to restrict the obligations that it undertook or to eliminate certain of Mollenhauer’s contractual obligations from the scope of the bond, it could easily have done so. It did not. Instead, Zurich issued a bond that obliged it, in the event of Mollenhauer’s default, to "complete the Contract in accordance with its terms and conditions". It would be difficult to formulate a provision that would more easily embrace all of the obligations of Mollenhauer’s under its contract with Landmark.”
![Page 16: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Justice Lamek:
“If Zurich intended to restrict the obligations that it undertook or to eliminate certain of Mollenhauer’s contractual obligations from the scope of the bond, it could easily have done so. It did not. Instead, Zurich issued a bond that obliged it, in the event of Mollenhauer’s default, to "complete the Contract in accordance with its terms and conditions". It would be difficult to formulate a provision that would more easily embrace all of the obligations of Mollenhauer’s under its contract with Landmark.”
![Page 17: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Justice Lamek:
“If Zurich intended to restrict the obligations that it undertook or to eliminate certain of Mollenhauer’s contractual obligations from the scope of the bond, it could easily have done so. It did not. Instead, Zurich issued a bond that obliged it, in the event of Mollenhauer’s default, to "complete the Contract in accordance with its terms and conditions". It would be difficult to formulate a provision that would more easily embrace all of the obligations of Mollenhauer’s under its contract with Landmark.”
![Page 18: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Justice Lamek:
“If Zurich intended to restrict the obligations that it undertook or to eliminate certain of Mollenhauer’s contractual obligations from the scope of the bond, it could easily have done so. It did not. Instead, Zurich issued a bond that obliged it, in the event of Mollenhauer’s default, to "complete the Contract in accordance with its terms and conditions". It would be difficult to formulate a provision that would more easily embrace all of the obligations of Mollenhauer’s under its contract with Landmark.”
![Page 19: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Reaction to Whitby Landmark Trial Decision:
J. Steven Tatrallyay:
Decision “will have a major impact on the surety industry”
R. Bruce Reynolds:
Decision is “much ado about nothing”
Court’s statement that the CCDC performance bond clearly and unambiguous-ly rendered the surety liable for collateral mone-tary obligations was just plain wrong.
![Page 20: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Whitby Landmark Developments Inc. v. Mollenhauer Construction Ltd. (2003), 67
O.R. (3d) 628 (C.A.)
“There is no basis in the language of the bond or in the circumstances surrounding its negotiation or completion to suggest that the cost-sharing provisions of the construction contract are not included as bonded losses.”
![Page 21: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
?
WhitbyLandmark
Lac La Ronge
Doe v.Canadian
Surety
ThomasFuller
Citadel v.Johns
Manville
ElanceSteel
PaulD’Aoust
![Page 22: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Meanwhile, in Saskatchewan
Lac La Ronge Indian Band v. Dallas Contracting Ltd. (2004), 35 C.L.R. (3d) 236 (Sask. C.A.)
![Page 23: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Facts:
Compensated surety CCDC performance bond Late completion Termination Liquidated damages
![Page 24: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Trial Decision (2001), 9 C.L.R. (3d) 25 (Sask. Q.B.):
Surety was liable with respect to liquidated damages for delay.
![Page 25: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Trial Judge:
the phrase “complete the Contract” does not confine the surety’s liability to completing the “work” described in the Contract;
by the terms of the Contract, the Band may deduct liquidated damages from the amount otherwise payable to Dallas under the Contract and, therefore, may deduct them from the remaining funds;
the definition in the Bond of the term “balance of the Contract price” confirms the ability to deduct liquidated damages from the amount otherwise payable to Dallas.
![Page 26: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Court of Appeal (Jackson J.A.)
(2004), 35 C.L.R. (3d) 236 (Sask. C.A.)
Surety was not liable with respect to liquidated damages for delay.
![Page 27: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Whitby
In case of default, surety has 3 options:
- remedy default
- complete contract
- obtain new bid
Lac La Ronge
In case of default, surety has 3 options:
- remedy default
- complete contract
- obtain new bids
![Page 28: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Whitby
There was no qualification on type of default referred to
Third option did not limit surety’s obligation to funding the completion of physical construction, but included other costs and damages.
Lac La Ronge
Surety did neither, but the measure of damages can’t be greater than if it had fulfilled either option.
Surety’s obligation can’t be greater under option 2 than under option 3, because no surety would ever use option 2 if it meant greater liability
![Page 29: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Whitby
Third option required surety to pay costs of completion less balance of contract price, which was defined as total amount payable by obligee to principal less amount paid by principal to obligee.
Therefore, amount surety had to pay to complete was higher than it would have been without cost sharing agreement.
Lac La Ronge
“Balance of contract price” does not mean damages award can be deducted from amount payable.
“Total amount payable” is amount of contract.
Words “complete the contract” can more easily be interpreted as “complete the work” than as “perform all obligations under the contract”.
![Page 30: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
?
WhitbyLandmark
Lac La Ronge
Doe v.Canadian
Surety
ThomasFuller
Citadel v.Johns
Manville
ElanceSteel
PaulD’Aoust
![Page 31: Sorting Out Whitby Landmark](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062305/56814e6c550346895dbc089a/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
The End