Federal appeal | Contracts
Performance and breach
Appellant breached its level of service obligations
Respondent operated grain elevator facilities. Prior to construction of facilities parties entered into confidential contract. For several weeks respondent did not receive all of railcars that it ordered, and no car were delivered for six weeks to any of respondent’s facilities. Canadian Transportation Agency found appellant breached its level of service obligations to respondent for several weeks. Appellant appealed. Appeal dismissed. Agency did not err in its application of s. 113 to s. 116 of Canada Transportation Act. Agency did not err in concluding that appellant could not now complain that respondent’s orders were unreasonable because it agreed to supply number of cars ordered by respondent. Appellant was bound by agreement reached with respondent. Whether confidential contract was confidential contract for purposes of s. 113(4) of Act was not matter that could be appealed under Act. Agency’s interpretation of “Service Unit” as used in confidential contract was not extricable question of law and no appeal lay under Act from the Agency’s interpretation of term. There was no merit to respondent’s argument that it was denied procedural fairness.
Canadian National Railway v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Canada Ltd. (Sep. 16, 2016, F.C.A., J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A., Wyman W. Webb J.A., and Yves de Montigny J.A., A-140-15) 270 A.C.W.S. (3d) 681.
Appellant breached its level of service obligations
Respondent operated grain elevator facilities. Prior to construction of facilities parties entered into confidential contract. For several weeks respondent did not receive all of railcars that it ordered, and no car were delivered for six weeks to any of respondent’s facilities. Canadian Transportation Agency found appellant breached its level of service obligations to respondent for several weeks. Appellant appealed. Appeal dismissed. Agency did not err in its application of s. 113 to s. 116 of Canada Transportation Act. Agency did not err in concluding that appellant could not now complain that respondent’s orders were unreasonable because it agreed to supply number of cars ordered by respondent. Appellant was bound by agreement reached with respondent. Whether confidential contract was confidential contract for purposes of s. 113(4) of Act was not matter that could be appealed under Act. Agency’s interpretation of “Service Unit” as used in confidential contract was not extricable question of law and no appeal lay under Act from the Agency’s interpretation of term. There was no merit to respondent’s argument that it was denied procedural fairness.
Canadian National Railway v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Canada Ltd. (Sep. 16, 2016, F.C.A., J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A., Wyman W. Webb J.A., and Yves de Montigny J.A., A-140-15) 270 A.C.W.S. (3d) 681.
