Mary Carter Decision Is Upheld By The Supreme Court Of Canada

more+
less-

In my article April 2011, titled Who Knew That Mary Carter Was Involved In Construction Law?, I reported about the decision in Aecon Buildings v. Stephenson Engineering Limited. In that decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal stayed an owner's claim because of the non-disclosure of a Mary Carter agreement.

The Supreme Court of Canada has recently dismissed an application for leave to appeal from that decision. Justice Binnie wrote the decision denying leave and he answers the "importance" question. Accordingly, the ruling by the Court of Appeal will stand as good law across Canada on this issue.

As a result, the comments in my article of April 3, 2011 are now under-lined:

"This decision is a reminder of the drastic remedies available to the Courts if litigation is conducted unfairly" and the parties must be scrupulous to ensure that Mary Carter and other similar agreements affecting the conduct of litigation are immediately disclosed.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Published In: Civil Procedure Updates, Civil Remedies Updates, Construction Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Thomas Heintzman, Arbitration Place | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

CONNECT

Thomas Heintzman
Arbitration Place

Thomas G. Heintzman specializes in arbitration and mediation at Arbitration Place in Toronto. His... View Profile »


Follow Arbitration Place:

Reporters on Deadline