April 20, 2020
As countries around the world grapple with the spread of COVID-19, global restrictions and containment measures have presented a range of challenges for the energy and natural resource sector; principle among them are the impacts on global supply chains. These restrictions have made it increasingly difficult for companies to fulfill their commercial obligations.
Often included within contracts as an afterthought, or “worst-case scenario”, force majeure provisions are becoming increasingly relevant. The following provides a brief overview of force majeure provisions, considers whether they are engaged by pandemics such as COVID-19, identifies some of the factors that you should consider in determining whether you can rely on force majeure to excuse contractual performance and, lastly, identifies what steps you can take when faced with a force majeure notice from a supplier or counterpart.
What Is Force Majeure?
Force majeure, or “Act of God” provisions, are a common element of commercial contracts, particularly within the energy and natural resource sector. These provisions provide parties to a contract with a remedy where an unforeseen event makes the performance of the contract impossible. Typically, these provisions include a comprehensive list of events that trigger a force majeure. Affected parties will not be required to perform their contractual obligations where an appropriate triggering event has been identified.
This remedy can be temporary or permanent depending on the wording of the provision itself and the nature of the event in question.
When can force majeure be invoked?
The scope and application of force majeure provisions are limited by the wording of the contract itself. It can only be relied on in accordance with the express terms of the contract.
Canadian courts have set down a number of common principles that are helpful in interpreting the language of force majeure clauses. Across Atlantic Canada, courts have taken a strict interpretation in answering the question of what constitutes a force majeure event. In light of this approach, courts have found that the following essential elements are necessary to invoke force majeure:
1. Trigger Event. In considering the wording of the provision, the actual event must fit within the meaning of force majeure in the contract. Courts have granted considerable deference to the intentions of the contracting parties, meaning that if the event in question is excluded from a list of triggers, it will not likely qualify in excusing performance under the contract.
2. Foreseeability. Courts have found that the events in question must have been unforeseeable at the time of contract formation and cannot be the foreseeable results of a parties’ own actions. For this reason, the timing of contract formation will be an important determining factor.
3. Lack of Control. The event being relied upon must genuinely be beyond the control of the party unless the contract states otherwise.
4. Causation. Parties must also demonstrate that the delay was caused directly by the force majeure event relied on, independent of their own actions.
5. Unavoidable. The force majeure event or the consequences of the event must not have been avoidable by the use or application of reasonable human foresight and skill (i.e. the relying party could not have “foreseen” the event and taken steps to avoid the consequences). This requires parties to consider and explore reasonable alternatives or other contractual remedies that may be available.
6. Impossibility of Performance. The force majeure event must make the performance of the contract impossible. The courts have been clear that parties to a contract will not be permitted to rely on force majeure for non-performance due to mere inconvenience or commercial hardship unless stated otherwise within the terms of the contract.
7. Duty to Mitigate. Parties seeking to invoke force majeure must ensure that there were no reasonable steps that could have been taken, while exercising reasonable skill, to avoid or mitigate the event and its consequences.
8. Process. A party invoking force majeure must strictly comply with all required notice or other procedural requirements identified within the contract.
Can force majeure provisions be invoked in response to COVID-19?
Under Canadian Law, the answer is: it depends.
In considering the effect of events such as global pandemics, the question that must be asked is whether the events were foreseeable and whether the pandemic and subsequent containment measures, makes the performance of the contract impossible.
This is a particularly onerous standard. A contracting party will typically need to point to a specific event that makes the performance of the contract impossible. A generalized epidemic/pandemic that dampens markets or slows business, creates supply chain disruptions that can be avoided or mitigated or makes performance uneconomical is unlikely to rise to the strict standard of making performance “impossible”.
In each case, a party relying on a force majeure clause must identify the “event” that has caused the delay or failure to perform and demonstrate “how” that event has made performance impossible. Simply referencing “COVID-19” or “coronavirus” would not meet such a threshold.
In seeking to take advantage of a force majeure clause, you must ask, is there a single identifiable event that makes it impossible to perform the contract?
Such an event may include the decision to quarantine a location or the imposition of restrictive measures that make it impossible for the party to carry on business. In the shipping context, this could mean the quarantine of crew members, restriction of entry into the country or restriction on imports from certain areas of the world, each of which is currently rearing its head in some form. Likewise, in the energy sector, government-imposed restrictions making the supply of goods or resources impossible would qualify as a specific, defining event preventing the performance of the contract.
Finally, these events must be ones that cannot be mitigated or otherwise avoided. Certainly, it is not expected that parties would have foreseen the outbreak of COVID-19 and the global response measures, but the question will be whether the party could have taken alternative measures to affect the performance of the contract. If a contracting party can otherwise continue to satisfy its contractual obligations, the force majeure clause will not operate to absolve that party from its contractual responsibilities.
Have you received a notice of force majeure from a supplier or customer?
The following checklist summarizes the key elements that should be considered in analyzing force majeure claims arising from COVID-19 and the relevant factors that should be considered in relation to each key element:
1. Triggering Event
2. Time of Contract Formation
3. Impact and Causation
4. Notice Requirement
5. Requirement to Mitigate Loss
6. Remedy
7. Consider Contract- Based Alternatives to Force Majeure Clause
Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of our Energy and Natural Resources Team @ McInnes Cooper to discuss this topic or any other legal issue.
McInnes Cooper has prepared this document for information only; it is not intended to be legal advice. You should consult McInnes Cooper about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. McInnes Cooper excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.
© McInnes Cooper, 2020. All rights reserved. McInnes Cooper owns the copyright in this document. You may reproduce and distribute this document in its entirety as long as you do not alter the form or the content and you give McInnes Cooper credit for it. You must obtain McInnes Cooper’s consent for any other form of reproduction or distribution. Email us at [email protected] to request our consent.
Aug 26, 2024
On June 20, 2024, the Canadian Competition Act was amended to specifically make greenwashing claims reviewable conduct. Pressure on Canadian…
Aug 22, 2024
In early April 2024, Nova Scotia’s Energy Reform (2024) Act (Bill 404) passed, marking the beginning of a new direction for Nova Scotia’s…
Feb 23, 2024
On January 24, 2024, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court upheld the N.S. Environment Minister’s approval of a proposed windfarm development’s…
Nov 1, 2023
On October 13, 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its judicial reference opinion: a significant portion of Canada’s federal…
Aug 8, 2023
We updated this publication on August 10, 2023. The Nova Scotia commercial net-metering regime just took another step toward implementation.…
Jan 25, 2023
Buzz around the potential of hydrogen as a green energy source has been growing. And the Atlantic Canadian provinces are poised to become a key…
Nov 10, 2022
Updated August 8, 2023. October 2022 amendments to the N.S. Renewable Electricity Regulations ushered in a new Commercial Net-metering regime…
Jun 24, 2022
The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench has issued a court order to stop Indigenous fishers (all apparently members of the Wolastoqey Nation)…
Jun 6, 2022
The Federal Court’s April 22, 2022 decision in Mowi Canada West Inc. v. Canada (Fisheries, Oceans and Coast Guard) has implications for the…
Feb 3, 2022
On January 26, 2022, the British Columbia Court of Appeal extended an injunction preventing protesters from interfering with a logging…
Nov 10, 2021
On November 5, 2021, the Province of Nova Scotia passed the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act. The Act will serve as the…
Oct 29, 2021
The New Brunswick Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulation, effected under the N.B. Climate Change Act, establishes specific…
Oct 19, 2021
Canada’s aquaculture industry is poised for growth but that growth is being challenged by regulatory uncertainty and a lack of confidence…
Jul 27, 2021
Canadian entities regularly contract with foreign companies to provide services in Canada. To complete its obligations under the contract, the…
Jun 1, 2021
We updated this publication on July 22, 2021. On May 26, 2021, the Hague District Court in the Netherlands ordered Royal Dutch Shell (RDS) to…
Apr 13, 2021
On April 7, 2021, the Nova Scotia government introduced Bill 97, amendments to the N.S. Electricity Act aimed at growing the solar industry in…
Jan 20, 2021
We updated this publication on July 8, 2022. 2020 was a year filled with challenges, including in the relationship between Indigenous…
Dec 22, 2020
The long-awaited amendments to federal fisheries regulations codifying key aspects of the Department of Fisheries & Oceans (DFO) PIIFCAF…
Feb 4, 2020
Tidal developers considering responding to the FORCE Berth D procurement now have a clearer view of just what the successful proponent will get.…
Jan 15, 2020
NOTE: In December 2020, the federal government published the long-awaited final amendments to federal fisheries regulations codifying key…
Nov 22, 2019
The Environmental Emergency Regulations, effected under section 200(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and in force since…
Apr 29, 2019
The growing global population is feeding global demand for seafood. Growing demand is likely to drive investment, particularly mergers and…
Jun 29, 2018
The Crown’s duty to consult Indigenous Peoples has evolved considerably since the Supreme Court of Canada’s first detailed articulation of…
Feb 13, 2018
The much-anticipated Nova Scotia marine renewable energy regime finally has the force of law. First introduced over two years ago, the Nova…
Nov 30, 2017
On November 30, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada denied Geophysical Service Incorporated’s (GSI) application for leave to appeal the decision…
Nov 17, 2017
It’s official: as of October 31, 2017, “facilitation payments” contravene Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA).…
Nov 7, 2017
On November 2, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada was faced with the Ktunaxa Nation’s claim that a Ministerial decision to approve a project…
Sep 29, 2017
Atlantic Canada is at a turning point. The region’s history and economic development have historically been inextricably linked to the ocean.…
Aug 16, 2017
In the not-so-distant past, Canadian enforcement of its anti-corruption and anti-bribery legal regime has been relatively laid-back. But the…
Jul 28, 2017
All stakeholders in any major project development already know that adequate consultation before - rather than after - a project is approved is…
May 11, 2017
The Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act is one of several anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws aimed at fighting corruption in the…
May 1, 2017
NOTE: On November 30, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada denied Geophysical Service Incorporated’s (GSI) application for leave to appeal the…
Apr 20, 2017
On April 13, 2017, Canada’s federal government introduced legislation that, if passed into law, will legalize recreational cannabis in Canada.…
Apr 17, 2017
Recreational cannabis isn’t legal yet - but much of the associated stigma is already gone, usage is up and employers are feeling the workplace…
Jan 25, 2017
Doing business with the public sector creates an often overlooked – but very real – risk that the confidential information a business…
Dec 7, 2016
Updated February 7, 2024. We live in a world of change. New ideas and new industries are rapidly developing and the list keeps growing: tidal…
Nov 9, 2016
The balance between the public’s interest in accessing offshore petroleum resources data and operators’ commercial interests is at the heart…
Sep 12, 2016
On September 9, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Musqueam Indian Band v. Musqueam Indian Band (Board of Review) that an Indian band…
Jun 17, 2016
In its June 16, 2016 decision in Rogers Communications Inc. v. Châteauguay (City), the Supreme Court of Canada decided a municipality’s…
Jun 10, 2016
Administrative monetary penalties, or “AMPs”, are a new phenomenon in the Canadian offshore. AMPs were introduced to the Newfoundland &…
Jun 6, 2016
On June 2, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada denied an Alberta First Nation’s request to appeal the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of its bid…
Jun 6, 2016
Each Provincial government is under the legal duty to consult; the manner in which each carries out its legal duty to consult differs depending…
May 2, 2016
Updated October 4, 2023. Workplace accidents regularly lead to charges under occupational health and safety (OHS) law. These charges can be…
Apr 19, 2016
On April 14, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that Métis and “non-status Indians” are “Indians” under section 91(24) of the…
Mar 24, 2016
When a business responds to a public sector Request for Proposal or Expression of Interest (both of which we’ll refer to as an RFP for these…
Mar 9, 2016
On January 11, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sentenced a front-line supervisor to imprisonment for 3½ years for four counts of…
Feb 15, 2016
On February 26, 2016, the bulk of the offshore-related amendments of the Energy Safety and Security Act (ESSA, formerly known as Bill C-22) take…
Dec 21, 2015
A practical and current guide created to help you navigate the increasingly important issues surrounding offshore decommissioning and…
Jul 17, 2015
On the heels of National Aboriginal Day, we pause to take a look back at two significant Aboriginal law cases decided in the last year, how…
Jul 10, 2015
On April 15, 2015, British Columbia’s Court of Appeal confirmed that First Nations can make certain legal claims grounded in Aboriginal rights…
Jun 25, 2015
Updated October 4, 2023. Most people know a company itself has occupational health and safety (OHS) obligations and risks corporate liability…
Dec 10, 2014
“Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) as a concept has been floating around in business-speak for years – but stakeholders in the mining…
Jul 15, 2014
On July 11, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the “Crown” in historical treaties with First Nations groups includes both the…
Jun 26, 2014
On June 26, 2014, in its groundbreaking decision on Aboriginal title in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. B.C., the Supreme Court of Canada …
Subscribe to McInnes Cooper to stay current with our leading insights on legal updates, trends, news, events, and services.