The dispute between the appellant and the respondents can only be understood in the context of the changes in the manner in which electricity has been produced and sold to consumers in Ontario over the last 30 years. In 2010, for policy reasons unrelated to the direct or indirect costs of electricity, the government decided that it would change the way it allocated the GA among electricity consumers. The Reallocation Regulation established two classes of customers for the purposes of allocating the GA charge. One group, Class A customers, consisted of the large industrial energy users whose average monthly demands exceeded five megawatts. The second group, Class B customers, consisted of all other customers, and those customers who fell within the Class A definition but chose to be Class B customers. The reallocation was done principally to reduce prices charged to large industrial customers in the hope of encouraging those customers to maintain manufacturing facilities within Ontario.
I pause here to point out that Justice Allen’s judgment is a simple one-paragraph judgment for payment of money. The judgment does not direct an accounting or order a tracing of the funds invested . I foreshadow to say that in my opinion part of the reason why the judgment debtor process in this case has gone awry
The trial judge awarded damages to the respondents for their losses arising out of unauthorized investment trading by the appellants. The appellants argue that the action was barred by the limitation period under s. 5(1) of the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B.
Canadian common law in relation to good faith performance of contracts is piecemeal, unsettled and unclear. Two incremental steps are in order to make the common law more coherent and more just. The first step is to acknowledge that good faith contractual performance is a general organizing principle of the common law of contract which underpins and informs the various rules in which the common law, in various situations and types of relationships, recognizes obligations of good faith contractual performance. The second step is to recognize, as a further manifestation of this organizing principle of good faith, that there is a common law duty which applies to all contracts to act honestly in the performance of contractual obligations.