Difference between revisions of "Clinician Guide for Consumer Transactions (11:X)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
In the past, Canadian courts would not enforce those contracts created for an illegal purpose. | In the past, Canadian courts would not enforce those contracts created for an illegal purpose. | ||
A leading case in this area is ''International Paper Industries Ltd | A leading case in this area is ''International Paper Industries Ltd v Top Line Industries Inc'', [1996] 7 WWR 179, 135 DLR (4th) 423 (BCCA), in which a lease for a portion of land was declared invalid, preventing the tenant from exercising the option to renew, because the land was subdivided contrary to the ''Land Title Act'', RSBC 1996, c 250. | ||
Today, courts may enforce contracts made for an illegal purpose if inequity would otherwise result, or if the purpose of the governing statute is not undermined. See ''Still v Minister of National Revenue'', [1998] 1 FC 549 (CA). The Court will consider the purpose and object of a statutory prohibition when deciding whether or not the contract is enforceable. ''Continental Bank Leasing Corp v Canada'', [1998] 2 SCR 298 | Today, courts may enforce contracts made for an illegal purpose if inequity would otherwise result, or if the purpose of the governing statute is not undermined. See ''Still v Canada (Minister of National Revenue)'', [1997] FCJ No 1622, [1998] 1 FC 549 (CA). The Court will consider the purpose and object of a statutory prohibition when deciding whether or not the contract is enforceable. ''Continental Bank Leasing Corp v Canada'', [1998] 2 SCR 298 at para 67 in particular offers a good summary of the law of illegality. | ||
== E. Determine the Limitation Period for Making a Claim == | == E. Determine the Limitation Period for Making a Claim == | ||