CASE NAME	Bhasin v. Hrynew
CITATION	[2013] ABCA 98
COURT	Alberta Court of Appeal
BENCH	Justices Berger, O’Brien, and Watson
APPELLANT	Bhasin
DEFENDANT	Hrynew
DECIDED ON	March 22, 2013

INTRODUCTION 

The recent decision of the Canadian Supreme Court in Bhasin v Hrynew has been celebrated as a groundbreaking achievement in the integration of a general duty of good faith from Quebec civil law into the English Canadian law of contracts, with implications that extend beyond the borders of Canada. The case would, therefore, serve as a testament to the reciprocal nature of Canadian juridical cross-pollination. While many have expressed concern regarding the preservation of Quebec’s civilian distinctness in the face of Canada’s dominant common law, we would now be observing a positive reversal of the pendulum.

At the risk of disappointing Canadian legal harmonization enthusiasts, it is firstly contended that it would be unwise to incorporate a general duty of good faith into English Canadian contract law. The internal logic of the common law of contracts, which is substantially different from that animating the civil law of contractual obligations, would be at odds with the implementation of such a doctrine, and it is unnecessary. And, as with any ill-fitting legal doctrine, the importation of this one into English Canadian contract law would undoubtedly result in conceptual disorder, confusion, and uncertainty—all of which are detrimental to the law. Secondly, I will provide a concise explanation of why I believe that the Bhasin decision does not, or at least does not yet, affect such an importation, as implied by the conditional tense used in the last sentences.

FACTS

Registered Education Saving Plans were sold by Canadian American Financial Corp, which is now called Heritage Education Funds. In 1998, Bhasin was hired as an “enrollment director” for three years, with the option to renew automatically if six months’ notice was provided. One competing enrollment director, Hrynew, wanted to join their agencies and asked Can-Am to make it happen, but Bhasin said no. Then, Can-Am hired Hrynew as a “provincial trading officer” to make sure they were following the rules set by the Alberta Securities Commission. This meant checking enrollment directors and having access to private business records. Bhasin said no. Can-Am told the Commission in June 2000 that it would reorganize its agencies to follow the rules. As part of this, Bhasin was to work for Hrynew’s agency, but Bhasin wasn’t told this. According to Bhasin, Hrynew had to keep information secret and avoided answering when Bhasin asked in August 2000 if the merger was a “done deal.” Then, Bhasin wouldn’t let Hrynew look over his records. Can-Am warned him that his job would not be renewed, and in May 2001, they did so. When the term ended, Bhasin’s business and employees lost value, and Hrynew hired his sales reps instead. Bhasin said that the unstated term of good faith had been broken.

ISSUE RAISED

The primary issue was whether or not there is an implied duty on the part of parties to any contract to perform the said contract in good faith. This was more pertinent in the case of a partnership agreement between Bhasin and Hrynew. The case examined whether this obligation meant that one must practice due honesty and fairness in their deeds. The Court had to address the additional concern about whether Hrynew was indeed culpable in breach of this duty by undertaking faculties that were alleged to be void and dishonest as an attempt to appropriately terminate the partnership that was impermissible under the terms of the agreement. The argument has also touched upon the appropriate remedy for such a breach; for example, is it right for Bhasin to recover damages, and, if it is, how is it to be calculated?

PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENTS

The plaintiff, Bhasin, contended that their partnership agreement with Hrynew was subject to an implied duty of good faith. Bhasin argued that this obligation necessitated that both parties conduct themselves in a manner that was both honest and equitable, which was a fundamental component of the contract. He alleged that Hrynew violated this obligation by engaging in misleading conduct and attempting to terminate the partnership in bad faith, which was inconsistent with the terms and spirit of their agreement. According to Bhasin, Hrynew’s actions undermined the trust and cooperation essential for the partnership to function effectively, resulting in substantial damage to both him and the business. Bhasin sought compensation for the financial and reputational harm he suffered as a consequence of Hrynew’s purported transgression of the duty of good faith.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

Hrynew, the respondent, contended that the partnership agreement between him and Bhasin did not impose an implied duty of good faith. Hrynew argued that the partnership agreement’s provisions were unambiguous and did not obligate the parties to act in a manner that exceeded the explicit stipulations. He argued that his actions, which included the attempt to terminate the partnership, were consistent with the terms of the agreement and within his contractual rights. Hrynew maintained that all actions were conducted in compliance with the legal and contractual framework and that Bhasin’s allegations of dishonesty and bad faith were unfounded. He contended that Bhasin’s allegations were a misinterpretation of the agreement and that the termination was a legitimate exercise of his contractual rights. Furthermore, Hrynew refuted the damages claim, contending that Bhasin had not sustained any quantifiable injury as a consequence of his actions.

JUDGEMENT

The Alberta Court of Appeal ruled in Bhasin’s favor in Bhasin v. Hrynew, establishing an implied duty of good faith in the performance of contracts. The court determined that Hrynew had violated this obligation by engaging in dishonest and unjust behavior in connection with the partnership agreement. The court determined that Hrynew’s misleading conduct and attempt to terminate the partnership in a manner that was inconsistent with the terms of the agreement constituted a breach of the implied duty of good faith.

The court’s ruling established that contractual performance is contingent upon the parties’ honesty and fairness in their interactions. Consequently, the court granted Bhasin compensation for the financial losses incurred due to Hrynew’s breach. The decision reaffirmed the principle that the parties to a contract must maintain a standard of good faith, which is essential for the preservation of trust and cooperation in contractual relationships.

CONCLUSION

Bhasin v. Hrynew is a groundbreaking decision in Canadian contract law that has established the existence of an implied duty of good faith in the performance of contracts. The Alberta Court of Appeal’s judgment emphasized the significance of good faith in the preservation of trust and integrity in contractual relationships, establishing that parties to a contract must act honestly and fairly. Dishonesty and unfair conduct in contractual transactions are actionable, as the court’s decision to award damages to Bhasin underscored the legal consequences of breaching this duty.

The case is noteworthy for its formal recognition and articulation of the duty of good faith as an implied term in all contracts, which significantly impacts the development of contract law. The ruling specifies that this obligation extends beyond mere contractual compliance; it necessitates that parties conduct themselves with integrity and impartiality throughout the fulfillment of their obligations.

The court reaffirmed the principle that contractual performance must be consistent with the expectations of honesty and equity by ruling in favor of Bhasin. This decision has significant implications for interpreting and enforcing contracts in Canada, establishing a precedent for future cases involving transgressions of good faith. The judgment also underscores the courts’ readiness to enforce legal repercussions for violations of this obligation, thereby promoting more ethical and transparent conduct in contractual relationships.

In general,  the case emphasizes the changing nature of contract law and the significance of good faith as a fundamental element of contractual performance, which has an impact on the resolution of contractual disputes and the perception of contractual obligations.