Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 302
(S.C.), reversed in part on other grounds (2003), 15 B.C.L.R. (4 th ) 209 (C.A.), at paras. 129 to 130,
Justice Harvey of the British Columbia Supreme Court said the following:
…In my opinion, it is therefore not possible to endorse the view that
a general duty of good faith exists in law. The duty of good faith,
where it exists, is a matter of fact to be found in the express terms of
the contract or derived by implication from the reasonable
expectations of the parties.
It is however possible to endorse a related and somewhat narrower
proposition – namely, that a party to contract may not act in relation
to the contract in such a way as to nullify the bargained objective or
benefit moving to the other party under the contract. This proposition
is expressly adopted by the B.C. Court of Appeal in Mannpar
Enterprises v. Canada (1999), 173 D.L.R. (4 th ) 243 (B.C.C.A.). The
parties did not cite this case, perhaps because it deals specifically
with good faith requirements in the context of agreements to
negotiate and therefore triggers considerations not directly relevant to
fully crystallized contracts. Nevertheless, I believe that the Court of
Appeal is affirming a general principle of contract law, irrespective
of the context of its application.
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
[1146] This view of the law is consistent with the statement of Lord Justice Goff in Daulia. It is not
open to a party to a contract to engage in behaviour that would defeat the purpose of the contract. In
the present case, that purpose was to have a mill in southeast Yukon with a long-term wood supply
of 200,000 m 3 that would enable the efficient and economical operations of the said mill.
[1147] In the present case, I find that the Defendant has engaged in behaviour that falls within the
prohibited behaviour identified in Schluessel.
[1148] In summary, I have found that there was a unilateral contract, that the Plaintiffs acted upon
the Defendant’s representation and built the mill, and that the Defendant breached that contract.