b'AFFAIRES JURIDIQUESsubcontractors, a recent Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act (ONCA) decision illustrates the pitfalls of not paying closeenoughattentiontowhatexactlyyouneedtoMalheureusement, un indemnify for. article mal rdig peut Capital Sewer Servicing Inc. v. Crosslinx TransitSolutions Constructors, 2022 ONCA 10 tre une source de In Capital Sewer Servicing Inc. v. Crosslinx Transit Solutions Constructors, the subcontractor appellant, Capital, and theconfusion et exposer general contractor respondent, Crosslinx, were involved in constructing a light railway transit system in Toronto. The contractorswereengagedinconstructingasewersystem;une partiedimportants however,atonepoint,thesystemallegedlybackedup, resulting in flooding and causing property damage to threecots de responsabilit nearby properties. Two of the property owners sued Crosslinx and Capitaltheir claims included allegations that Capital and Crosslinx were negligent.Crosslinx brought an application in which they claimedmanire dont vous ngociez les contrats. Pour les sous-trai-that the terms of the subcontract agreement obliged Capitaltants, une dcision rcente en vertu de la Loi sur les organi-to indemnify Crosslinx and hold Crosslinx harmless fromsationsbut non lucratif de lOntario illustre les piges du the damages, legal fees and other costs associated with themanque dattention au contenu des clauses dindemnisation. claims made by the property owners. Capital denied any such obligation, arguing that Crosslinx assumed the risk of theCapital Sewer Servicing Inc. c. Crosslinx Transitdamage described in the property owners claims pursuantSolutions Constructors, 2022 ONCA 10to a covenant in Crosslinxs prime contract requiring themDans Capital Sewer Servicing Inc. c. Crosslinx Transit Solu-toobtainaninsurancepolicywhichwouldholdCapitaltionsConstructors,lerequrantCapital,etlentrepreneur harmless from the property owners actions, and thereforegnral intim, Crosslinx, ont t impliqus dans la construc-nullifyCapitalsindemnityobligationstoCrosslinx.Bothtion dun systme de transport en commun par chemin de Crosslinx and Capital submitted applications to the Ontariofer lgerToronto. Les entrepreneurs ont t engags pour Superior Court of Justice (ONSC) seeking an interpretationconstruire un systme dgout qui sest malheureusement of the subcontract agreement (the subcontract). bloqu, provoquant des dommagestrois proprits. Deux TheONSCwasrequiredtoimplementtherulesofdes propritaires ont poursuivi Crosslinx et Capital en formu-contract interpretation, which required the Court to considerlantleur endroit des allgations de ngligence.the subcontract as a whole, and to avoid interpretations thatCrosslinx a prsent une demande dans laquelle elle a would render one or more of its terms ineffective. The ONSCprtendu que les termes de laccord de sous-traitance obli-found in favour of Crosslinx and reasoned that the subcontractgeaient Capitalindemniser Crosslinx ettenir Crosslinx contained clear language that the parties intended for Capitalindemne des dommages, frais juridiques et autres cots. to indemnify Crosslinx for all risks related to their work. TheCapital a ni une telle obligation, soutenant que Crosslinx ONSC found that although the subcontract incorporated byavait pris le risque des dommages en vertu dune clause reference the terms of the prime contract, it did so with thedans le contrat de base de Crosslinx qui les obligeaitobtenir changes necessary to give full effect to the intent of the partiesune police dassurance tenant Capital indemne des actions as set out in this subcontract, and subject to the express termsen justice, ce qui annulait les obligations dindemnisation and conditions hereof.de Capital envers Crosslinx. Crosslinx et Capital ont soumis Putanotherway,thesubcontractprovisionstookdes demandesla Cour suprieure de justice de lOntario precedenceoverthoseoftheprimecontract,whichwere(CSJO) pour une interprtation de laccord de sous-traitance incorporated by reference. The ONSC ordered that Capital(le sous-contrat).had a duty to indemnify Crosslinx for all costs and expensesLaCSJOtaittenuedemettreenuvrelesrgles (except for Crosslinxs own negligence) related to the propertydinterprtationdescontrats,quiexigeaientquelaCour owners claims. Capital appealed the decision. tienne compte de lensemble du contrat de sous-traitance The Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) ruled in favour ofet vite des interprtations qui rendraient inutilisables un ou Crosslinx and upheld the ONSC decision. The ONCA heldplusieurs de ses termes. La CSJO a tranch en faveur de that no legal duty exists whereby a partys covenant to insureCrosslinx et a raisonn sur le fait que le sous-contrat conte-against a risk must mean that the party assumed the risk of thenait un libell clair que les parties destinesCapital pour harm insured against, should the risk of harm materialize.indemniserCrosslinxpourtouslesrisquesserapportant Instead,everycontractwithsuchacovenantmustbe leur travail. La CSJO a constat que, bien que le sous-interpreted after reading the contract as a whole in the factualcontrat ait incorpor par renvoi les modalits du contrat prin-context of the particular circumstances. In this case, aftercipal, il lavait faitavec les changements ncessaires pour AUTOMNE/HIVER 2022 COUVERTURES CANADA 41'