Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. v. Hydro‑Québec 2018 SCC 46

Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. v. Hydro‑Québec 2018 SCC 46

Date	2018-11-02
Neutral citation	2018 SCC 46
Report	[2018] 3 SCR 101
Case number	37238
Judges	McLachlin, Beverley; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Wagner, Richard; Gascon, Clément; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell; Rowe, Malcolm
On appeal from	Quebec

Breakdown of the Decision:

• Majority Decision: Justice Clément Gascon dismissed the appeal (Justices Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Côté, and Brown agreed)
• Dissenting: Justice Malcolm Rowe would have allowed the appeal, arguing the contract was relational and both parties had a duty to cooperate.
• Note: Former Chief Justice McLachlin sat on the bench for this case but did not participate in the judgment.

Case Background:

• Issue: Whether Hydro-Québec was obliged to renegotiate a 1969 contract with Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation (CF(L)Co) due to significant changes in electricity prices.
• Original Contract (1969): Hydro-Québec and CF(L)Co agreed to build a power station on the Churchill River. Hydro-Québec assumed most of the financial risk, agreeing to fixed electricity prices for 65 years and covering any construction cost overruns. In return, it secured a long-term supply of cheap energy. This allowed CF(L)Co to secure stable income and financing for the project, now valued at over $20 billion.

Developments:

• 2009: Electricity prices had increased significantly. Hydro-Québec sold electricity outside Quebec at higher prices, leading CF(L)Co to claim it deserved a share of the profits.
• 2010: CF(L)Co requested the courts to force Hydro-Québec to renegotiate the contract after Hydro-Québec refused to do so voluntarily.

Legal Arguments:

• CF(L)Co: Argued the contract was relational, necessitating cooperation and profit-sharing under the duty of good faith in Quebec’s Civil Code. They claimed Hydro-Québec should share the unexpected benefits from higher electricity prices.
• Hydro-Québec: Maintained that the contract was transactional, outlining specific risks and benefits. They argued there was no obligation to renegotiate or share profits.

Lower Court Decisions:

• Trial Court & Court of Appeal: Both ruled in favor of Hydro-Québec, stating the contract was not relational and did not require renegotiation or profit-sharing.

Supreme Court Ruling:

• Majority Decision: Upheld the lower courts’ rulings. The contract was determined to be transactional, not relational. The majority concluded that:
  • The contract’s detailed terms indicated a clear intent to adhere to the original agreement without relying on an ongoing relationship.
  • Good faith did not require Hydro-Québec to relinquish negotiated benefits or renegotiate due to unforeseen price changes.
  • Courts do not have the authority to compel parties to renegotiate core contract terms.
  • Hydro-Québec was not obligated to share profits simply because CF(L)Co was not benefitting equally.
  • The majority also agreed with the trial judge that CF(L)Co’s claim was time-barred.

Dissenting Opinion:

• Justice Rowe: Asserted that the contract was relational, implying a duty for both parties to cooperate and adapt to changing circumstances. He believed the appeal should be allowed to ensure fairness and mutual benefit.

Conclusion:

• The Supreme Court confirmed that courts should not alter or compel renegotiation of contracts if doing so would disrupt the balance agreed upon by the parties. This case emphasizes the importance of respecting the original terms and expectations set out in long-term contracts, even in the face of significant market changes.