b'BENCHMARKSTHE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA PROVIDES GUIDANCE ON RELEASESBy John B. MartensMany disputes in the constructionBrook (City) v. Bailey. The dispute inclaim on the basis that the release signed industry are settled prior to a trial orthis case arose from a motor vehicleby the driver and owner barred the City arbitration. The decision to settle ataccident in which a driver struck a cityfrom being subject to any claims relating an early stage can be driven by manyemployee while the employee wasto the accident. factors, including the cost (both internalperforming road work. After considering the wording of the and external) of litigation or arbitration,The city employee sued the driverrelease and the circumstances of the case, as well as delays and risks associatedand owner of the vehicle for injuriesthe Supreme Court of Canada decided with contested proceedings. sustained in the accident. In a separatethat the release barred the addition of If a matter is settled, parties oftenaction, the driver and owner sued thethe City to the employees claim, and exchange releases. A release documentCity for property damage to the vehicletherefore barred any claims by the driver is generally intended to release a partyand physical injuries suffered by theand owner against the City. from all claims relating to the mattersdriver. The driver and owner settled withThe Corner Brook decision provides in dispute. The document will also oftenthe City. The settlement terms includedguidance concerning the interpretation seek to release a party from any andthat the driver and owner execute andand enforceability of releases in civil all other claims between the parties,deliver a release in favour of the City.disputes. Traditionally, courts sought whether or not those claims are knownThe driver and owners action againstto narrowly interpret releases, which at the time of executing the release.the City was then discontinued. included limiting their application to A recent decision from the SupremeMany years after the settlement, thematters that a party had no knowledge Court of Canada offers guidance on thedriver and owner sought to claimof at the time of execution, unless the interpretation and enforceability against the City for contribution andrelease had sufficiently clear language. of releases. indemnity by issuing a third-party claim,In Corner Brook, the Court decided that CORNER BROOK (CITY) V. BAILEY adding the City as a party to the claimreleases should be interpreted using a In July 2021, the Supreme Court oforiginally filed by the city employee. Thepractical, common-sense approach, in the Canada released its decision on CornerCity sought to dismiss the third-partysame way as other contracts. No two businesses are built the same and each one has a different story. Contact Ruban Insurance Brokers for a Commercial Insurance plan tailored to you! We provide Builders Risk, Bonding Services, Wrap Up Liability, Property/Equipment Insurance and more.Contact us today to protect your story.www.rubaninsurance.comCall us at: 204-988-500022 BUILD MANITOBAwinnipegconstruction.ca'