Tick Tock: Supreme Court of Canada to consider “Time is of the Essence” Clauses

by Sam Fata

A “time is of the essence” (TOE) clause is a common contractual provision used in a wide range of commercial agreements. At its core, a TOE clause indicates that compliance with specified timelines is a material term of an agreement and that failure to meet those timelines, however minor or inconsequential, can constitute a breach entitling the non-breaching party to terminate the contract. In transactions with clearly defined deadlines (such as a fixed closing date), a TOE clause demonstrates that performance within a stipulated timeframe is an essential term of the agreement.

Notwithstanding their widespread use, TOE clauses have frequently been the subject of commercial disputes, highlighting the persistent challenges associated with their interpretation and application. Most recently, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) granted leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador in Nova Fish Farms Inc. v Cold Ocean Salmon Inc., highlighting the continued significance of TOE clauses in Canadian contract law.

The Dispute: Nova Fish Farms Inc. v Cold Ocean Salmon Inc.

In this dispute, Cold Ocean Salmon Inc. (the Seller) agreed to sell several trout farms to Nova Fish Farms Inc. (the Buyer) under an agreement of purchase and sale signed in February 2020 (the Agreement). The trout farms were on property leased from the provincial government and were licensed and regulated by both federal and provincial governments. As a result, the sale of the trout farms was conditional on government approval. The Agreement required each party to take the necessary steps to obtain government approval “as promptly as practicable” and that the parties use “commercially reasonable efforts” to obtain approval before closing. The Agreement contained a TOE clause.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, neither of the parties took any meaningful steps to obtain the necessary government approvals over the next 16 months. In June 2021, the Buyer submitted transfer applications to the government and received approval in October 2021. The Buyer then notified the Seller of the government approval and that the Buyer wished to proceed with closing. The Seller ultimately informed the Buyer that it did not intend to close, which led to the Buyer suing for specific performance.

The Lower Court’s Decision

The trial judge found that the Buyer had breached the Agreement by failing to take the necessary steps to obtain government approval “as promptly as practicable”. Although there were no set timelines in the Agreement to obtain the government approvals, the trial judge held that the 16-month period was not in the contemplation of the parties and that the TOE clause entitled the Seller to terminate the Agreement.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge, holding that the TOE clause did not extend to obligations governed by indefinite time provisions (i.e., “as promptly as practicable”). Rather, the Court of Appeal observed that the cases cited by the parties where TOE clauses were enforced “involved precisely stipulated time limits”, such as a fixed or outside closing date.

The Court of Appeal placed particular emphasis on the need for certainty in commercial agreements. It explained that contracting parties utilize TOE clauses to provide clear consequences of a breach relating to timelines, most notably, that a failure to meet such timelines entitles the non-breaching party to terminate the contract. Extending a TOE clause to obligations without defined timelines, the Court of Appeal cautioned, would undermine this objective by introducing ambiguity as to both compliance and the point at which termination rights arise.

Key Takeaways for Drafting and Strategy

The Nova Fish Farms Inc. v Cold Ocean Salmon Inc. case underscores the nuanced application of TOE clauses in Canadian commercial contracts. While TOE clauses are designed to ensure timely performance of contractual obligations, their enforceability may be tied to the presence of clearly defined deadlines. Subject to further guidance from the SCC, the Court of Appeal’s decision suggests that where contractual obligations are expressed in indefinite terms, such as “as promptly as practicable,” a TOE clause may not automatically grant a party the right to terminate.

This case serves as a cautionary reminder to contracting parties of the importance of establishing clear and precise deadlines within their agreements, particularly where the timing of performance is intended to be of fundamental importance. Parties should also carefully assess whether the inclusion of a TOE clause is appropriate in the circumstances. Such clauses should not be adopted as a matter of course, and instead should be evaluated and tailored on a case-by-case basis to ensure alignment with the parties’ intentions.

For businesses navigating complex commercial agreements, the use and interpretation of “time is of the essence” clauses can have significant legal and financial consequences. Sotos LLP has extensive experience advising clients on contract drafting, risk management, and high-stakes commercial disputes. If you have questions about how these developments may impact your agreements or require strategic guidance, our team would be pleased to assist.

About the Author
Sam Fata is an associate in the corporate and commercial group at Sotos LLP. His practice focuses on corporate finance, mergers and acquisitions, securities, and commercial law. He advises clients across a wide range of industries, including technology, manufacturing, mining, agribusiness, entertainment, artificial intelligence, and consumer goods. Sam takes a client-focused approach, working closely with businesses to understand their objectives and deliver practical, tailored legal solutions. He can be reached at 416.530.0447 or sfata@sotos.ca.