Sentences with phrase «moly corp.»

Keywords: Corporations, Contracts, Interpretation, Dividends, Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53

Because the issue before the court was the interpretation and enforcement of a non-standard form contract between the parties, on appeal, the principles articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, [2014] 2 SCR 633 apply.

Keywords: Contracts, Personal Services, Interpretation, Standard of Review, Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, Termination, Duty of Good Faith Performance, Damages, Mitigation, Howard v. Benson Group Inc. (The Benson Group Inc.), 2016 ONCA 256

«To my mind, this is a trend we're now starting to see, combined with the Sattva decision, in which greater deference is being paid to trial judges regarding how they are to interpret contracts, and contractual interpretation will be given greater deference on the basis it is now a question of mixed fact and law,» he says, referencing Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp..

Appellate courts must exercise caution in identifying errors of law in disputes arising from contractual interpretation: Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 633.

Following the recent Supreme Court decision in Creston Moly Corp. v. Sattva and Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. British Columbia, the Court of Appeal held that the standard of review of an arbitrator's decision is almost always «reasonableness» (this implies more deference to the arbitrator's decision than a standard of «correctness»).

Based on the factors set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Sattva Capital Corp. v Creston Moly Corp., those were questions of law.

Keywords: Real Property, Contracts, Agreements of Purchase and Sale of Land, Interpretation, Standard of Review, Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, Procedural Fairness, Labatt Brewing Co. v. NHL Enterprises Canada L.P., 2011 ONCA 511, Moore v. Sweet, 2017 ONCA 182, Rodaro v. Royal Bank of Canada (2002), 59 O.R. (3d) 74 (C.A.)

The Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp. is a remarkable document.

In B.C. the scope of appellate intervention in commercial arbitration is narrow: there is limited jurisdiction for appellate review of arbitration awards because B.C. is statutorily limited to questions of law (Arbitration Act, s. 31); even where such jurisdiction exists, the S.C.C. held that a deferential standard of review — reasonableness — «almost always» applies to arbitration awards (Sattva Capital v. Creston Moly Corp., [2014] 2 S.C.R. 633, at paras. 75, 104 and 106).

Contracts: Sattva Capital Corp. introduced Creston Moly Corp. (formerly Georgia Ventures Inc.) to a potential molybdenum mining deposit in Mexico.

Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 (35026) The historical approach that contractual interpretation of a written contract is always a question of law should be abandoned.

Keywords: Cost awards; Change in the Law; Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 (CanLII); «cause of the trouble»; Yang v. Ging, 2003 BCCA 473

The court in Kanda Franchising started with the premise that the interpretation of the scope of an arbitration agreement is a question of mixed fact and law, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Sattva Capital Corp. v Creston Moly Corp..

As noted by the Court of Appeal at para. 45, the Supreme Court of Canada provided the following description of the nature of evidence which may appropriately be considered as «surrounding circumstances» by a court interpreting terms of a contract (Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 (CanLII) at para. 58):

Because these three errors fell squarely within the list of extricable errors of law referred to in Sattva Captial Corp v. Creston Moly Corp., no deference was owed to the motion judge's interpretation of the contractual documents.

The next case that I want to mention is Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., released August 1.

Principal among these are the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in Sattva Capital Corp. v Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, [2014] 2 SCR 633 [Sattva] and Bhasin v Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, [2014] 3 SCR 494 [Bhasin].