referring to “[g]eneral principles governing the interpretation of commercial agreements”, as noted in Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 (CanLII), the Court of Appeal upheld the Application Judge`s approach to contract interpretation as a “reasonable approach that is not dominated by technical design rules”, in which the true objective is to determine “the intention of the parties and the extent of their understanding”. (See paragraph 18). Labrador – Island Link (LIL) is a 1100 km long 900 MW (HVV) high-voltage transmission line that carries electricity from a production plant in Muskrat Falls to the island of Newfoundland. The line runs from central Labrador to Soldiers Pond on the Avalon Peninsula via belle Isle Road. The owner and operator is Nalcor Energy. Since 2017, ATCO has been providing services to Nalcor Energy, including general technical management of converter stations, technical know-how for monitoring system studies, integration studies, control and protection tests, commissioning and construction inspection, operational and maintenance assistance and staff training. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal agreed that, in the overall interpretation of that dispute settlement agreement, there was no provision for strict compliance with the formalities of the dispute settlement agreement: the issuance of a request to respect that right within a limitation period would not have been explicitly mentioned, but, when the agreement was implemented, it would have been taken into consideration by those demanding parties. and was recognized by the investigating judge by reference to Article 1.13. (see paragraph 19).

In accordance with Rule 14.24(1)(d) of the Supreme Court Rules of 1986, a court may suppress “any plea” if it is an “abuse of process”. In this case, the issue was whether the respondent had not erred in finding the respondent`s application to abuse of process – in other words, whether the respondent could file its application despite a dispute settlement agreement that expressly states “. the Parties shall comply with this Article 34 before taking any other legal, legal or other measures concerning a dispute under this Agreement”? (See paragraph 6). In this case, Labrador-Island Link`s communication was not forwarded to the person indicated to General Cable and sent by e-mail (i.e.: Not as stated in the Dispute Resolution Agreement). However, the motion judge was satisfied that “. the intention of the parties was contained in Article 34, which was intended to ensure that General Cable was informed of the case” and that “[d] does not present any evidence. General Cable was not aware of the case, as the notification was not communicated to the person indicated. (See paragraph 17). To answer this question, the Court of Appeal had to determine whether the respondent had breached the dispute settlement clause contained in the agreement.

As such, this case is indicative of the analysis of these clauses – an essential part of any corporate transaction. The applicant, General Cable Company Ltd (General Cable), requested that the respondent`s application Labrador-Island Link Limited (“Labrador Island Link”) be withdrawn on the ground that its lawsuit in court constituted an abuse of process. According to General Cable, Labrador-Island Link does not meet the specific requirements contained in its dispute settlement agreement and therefore cannot take “additional measures” outside of their terms. Keywords: “Pride”; strike demand; Article 14.24 (1) (d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986. . . .

Be Sociable, Share!