First Principles (COL): Difference between revisions
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/j33l7 Threlfall v. Carleton University, 2019 SCC 50 (CanLII)]== | ==[http://canlii.ca/t/j33l7 Threlfall v. Carleton University, 2019 SCC 50 (CanLII)]== | ||
Present: <b>Wagner C.J.</b> and <b>Abella, Moldaver</b>, <b> | Present: <b>Wagner C.J.</b> and <b>Abella</b>, Moldaver, <b>Karakatsanis</b>, <b>Gascon</b>, Côté, Brown, <b>Rowe</b> and <b>Martin JJ</b>. | ||
Held (Moldaver, Côté and Brown JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be dismissed. | Held (Moldaver, Côté and Brown JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be dismissed. | ||
[26] We note that while the Plan also provides that it is to be “governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario” (s. 14.09(3)), given the absence of any ambiguity, there is no need to consult these laws for the meaning of these terms. In any event, it is well established that in the absence of any evidence being led on the law of the foreign jurisdiction (Ontario), the trial judge was required to apply the law in force in Quebec on the interpretation of these terms (art. 2809 C.C.Q.; Tolofson v. Jensen; Lucas (Litigation Guardian of) v. Gagnon, 1994 CanLII 44 (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022; Pettkus v. Becker, 1980 CanLII 22 (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834, at pp. 853-54; S. G. A. Pitel and N. S. Rafferty, Conflicts of Laws (2nd ed. 2016), at pp. 249-50). | [26] We note that while the Plan also provides that it is to be “governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario” (s. 14.09(3)), given the absence of any ambiguity, there is no need to consult these laws for the meaning of these terms. In any event, it is well established that in the absence of any evidence being led on the law of the foreign jurisdiction (Ontario), the trial judge was required to apply the law in force in Quebec on the interpretation of these terms (art. 2809 C.C.Q.; Tolofson v. Jensen; Lucas (Litigation Guardian of) v. Gagnon, 1994 CanLII 44 (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022; Pettkus v. Becker, 1980 CanLII 22 (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834, at pp. 853-54; S. G. A. Pitel and N. S. Rafferty, Conflicts of Laws (2nd ed. 2016), at pp. 249-50). | ||
Revision as of 20:52, 6 February 2020
Threlfall v. Carleton University, 2019 SCC 50 (CanLII)
Present: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe and Martin JJ.
Held (Moldaver, Côté and Brown JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be dismissed.
[26] We note that while the Plan also provides that it is to be “governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario” (s. 14.09(3)), given the absence of any ambiguity, there is no need to consult these laws for the meaning of these terms. In any event, it is well established that in the absence of any evidence being led on the law of the foreign jurisdiction (Ontario), the trial judge was required to apply the law in force in Quebec on the interpretation of these terms (art. 2809 C.C.Q.; Tolofson v. Jensen; Lucas (Litigation Guardian of) v. Gagnon, 1994 CanLII 44 (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022; Pettkus v. Becker, 1980 CanLII 22 (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834, at pp. 853-54; S. G. A. Pitel and N. S. Rafferty, Conflicts of Laws (2nd ed. 2016), at pp. 249-50).
