The principle of good faith in the performance of contractual obligations under the common law of Canada and the law of Quebec

Abstract

Introduction. In the paper, the author analyzes the principle of good faith in contractual performance under the common law of Canada and carry out a legal analysis of one of the key judicial precedents that is in relation to the designated area and that was adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2014, i.e. Bhasin v. Hrynew case. The study is focused on the principle of good faith contractual performance under the law of the Canadian province of Quebec as well.Materials and methods. The material for the study consists of the judicial precedents of Canadian courts as well as the papers of foreign and Russian researchers in the field of civil law. The methodological basis of research comprises general scientific methods of cognition (analysis, synthesis, analogy) as well as specific ones, i.e. the comparative legal method, the formal logical method, the systematic method, methods of structure and function and the method of interpretation.Results. The author conducts a detailed analysis of Bhasin v. Hrynew case and determines the role of this precedent in the common law of Canada as well as the criteria for identifying the principle and a duty of good faith contractual performance. The author also analyzes the principle of good faith under the law of Quebec, i.e. the relevant jurisprudence and the codification of this principle in the legislation of Quebec.Discussion and conclusion. The distinction of the principle of good faith in the performance of contractual obligations as a freestanding principle of Canada’s common law is justified. The Bhasin v. Hrynew case is a vivid illustration of the growing role of the principle of good faith in the countries of the common law tradition. Furthermore, the convergence of Canada’s common law and the law of the province of Quebec, the only one among ten provinces and three territories of Canada that clearly adheres to civil law tradition, is an impact on this precedent.