The Ontario Court of Appeal recently issued a significant decision in ID Inc. v. Toronto Wholesale Produce Association, 2025 ONCA 22, addressing fundamental principles of contract interpretation.
The Plaintiff/Respondent, a company specializing in outdoor advertising opportunities, proposed transforming a traditional billboard at the Ontario Food Terminal (“OFT”) into a lucrative digital sign. The Plaintiff/Respondent entered into a Sale and Maintenance Agreement (“SMA”) with the Defendant/Appellant, which required the Plaintiff/Respondent to secure a necessary permit for transforming the billboard within 360 days (the “Permit”). While the Plaintiff began the Permit process, the Defendant/Appellant directed it to halt municipal efforts and explore a provincial approval path. This shift, driven by legal opinions suggesting the OFT Board might be exempt from municipal regulations, ultimately led to the SMA’s expiration without the Permit being acquired. The Defendant/Appellant later awarded the digital sign project to another company, sparking the within litigation.
Key Issues on Appeal
The Defendant/Appellant appealed the trial judge’s decision that it breached the SMA on four main issues: (i) Contract Interpretation; (ii) waiver; (iii) estoppel; (iv) and interest.
First, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge’s reading of the SMA, emphasizing the plain wording of the agreement imposing an unambiguous 360-day deadline on the Plaintiff/Respondent for obtaining the Permit. The Court reinforced the principle that in commercial agreements between sophisticated parties, “failure is failure, period,” rejecting the trial judge’s injection of fault-based reasoning into their ruling.
Second, the Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge’s finding of waiver by the Defendant/Appellant, stating there was no evidence of a “clear and unequivocal intention” by the Defendant/Appellant to abandon its rights under the SMA.
Third, the Plaintiff/Respondent argued that the Defendant/Appellant should be estopped from relying on the 360-day time limit in the SMA due to a shared assumption between the parties. However, the Court of Appeal held that estoppel requires clear evidence of a mutual assumption and detrimental reliance, neither of which was present in this instance.
Finally, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge’s decision regarding the interest awarded under the SMA, emphasizing that a party is required to explicitly plead interest claims that fall outside the statutory default rates established by Ontario’s Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, which the Plaintiffs failed to do.
The Plaintiff/Respondent also cross-appealed the trial judge’s dismissal of its claim for breach of an alleged oral agreement. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding there was no evidence to support a binding oral agreement between the parties. The Court emphasized that contract formation must be assessed objectively, and subjective beliefs about an agreement’s existence are insufficient.
Takeaways
The ruling in ID Inc. v. Toronto Wholesale Produce Association serves as a stark reminder that contractual clarity and diligence are paramount. Parties must ensure their agreements accurately reflect their intentions, account for potential contingencies, and explicitly address critical obligations like time limits. A failure to adhere to these principles can result in costly litigation and unfavorable outcomes. Parties are encouraged to seek legal counsel when drafting commercial agreements, or in the event a dispute arises between two contracting entities regarding the interpretation of an agreement.
At Gilbertson Davis LLP, our lawyers can assist you with matters involving Commercial and Contract Litigation, Civil Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Commercial Contracts, and can aid in resolving your legal issues in a timely and cost-effective manner. Please contact Gilbertson Davis LLP to schedule a consultation with one of our lawyers.
Brief informational summaries about insurance litigation, commercial litigation and family law litigation matters in the courts of Ontario and Canada are periodically published on our website. Please note that our website content is for informational purposes only, and should not be construed or relied upon to provide legal advice. If you require legal advice, please request an initial consultation with Gilbertson Davis LLP using the Request Consultation Form on this webpage or by contacting our Intake Coordinator on (416) 979-2020, ext. 223 (both subject to the Terms of Use described on our Contact page).
Comments & Opinions by Gilbertson Davis LLP lawyers and staff on its Blog, or in media interviews, appearances or publications, or in professional publications, are personal to them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Firm or anyone at the Firm other than the individual expressing those comments or opinions.
About the Author
