Canadian courts and the principle of consistent expression in contractual interpretation (BIM v TEBC)

Table of contents

• What are the practical implications of this case?
• What was the background?
• What did the court decide?
• Case details

Article summary

Arbitration analysis: In Baffinland Iron Mines LP v Tower-EBC G.P., S.E.N.C, the Ontario Court of Appeal examined a principle of contractual interpretation (the presumption of consistent expression) and confined its application to a basic premise. Simply put, the court determined that, while there is a presumption that language in a contract is used consistently, this presumption does not apply to differently worded, but mutually reinforcing, phrasing with the same meaning. It concluded that, when assessing the legal effect of an arbitration agreement, that the phrases ‘finally settled’ and ‘final and binding’ had effectively the same meaning. Written by Ira Nishisato (partner), Hugh Meighen (partner), Erin Peters (senior associate) and Stéphanie Gagné (associate), of BLG Canada’s Law Firm. The authors represented TEBC before the Superior Court and Court of Appeal.