Krish Maharaj, PhD

Law Prof @thompsonriversu | Writes on Canadian private law including contract, remedies, and equity | Alum of @AKLLawSchool at @AucklandUNI, @AllardLaw at @UBC

[Krish Maharaj, PhD @Prof_Maharaj]

@MartineDennie Congratulations, Dr. Dennie!

[Krish Maharaj, PhD @Prof_Maharaj]

@MartineDennie Nice work, Mart!

[Krish Maharaj, PhD @Prof_Maharaj]

Hey folks,

It’s November 1, which means I’ve shaved my whiskers and I’m once again doing my bit to change the face of men’s health. You can donate here if you’re so inclined! @TRUFacultyofLaw @robsonhall

https://t.co/7mmBcTwbm3

[Krish Maharaj, PhD @Prof_Maharaj]

@amar what have you done??

[Krish Maharaj, PhD @Prof_Maharaj]

@TRUFacultyofLaw Great news!

[Krish Maharaj, PhD @Prof_Maharaj]

@Kjell_Anderson Thanks for the link. I’m a bit sceptical about the practical utility of customary IHRL for Canadians, their counsel, and courts, but it’s good to know it exists

[Krish Maharaj, PhD @Prof_Maharaj]

@Kjell_Anderson Is there such a thing as customary international IHRL? I didn't think there was, and if there isn't, then my point about implementation stands. If Canadian lawyers and judges can't use it, or go to courts that can, it's not very surprising they're unfamiliar with it.

[Krish Maharaj, PhD @Prof_Maharaj]

@Kjell_Anderson Let's not forget that Canada is a dualist system Kjell. IHRL isn't strictly speaking law in Canada unless its implemented through domestic legislation. Not to say that it's not valuable for understanding the scope of domestic HRL, but it's not binding.

[Krish Maharaj, PhD @Prof_Maharaj]

In a recent case, the BCSC has reiterated that the identity of a purchaser must be clear for a sale and purchase contract to be valid and enforceable. Also, a company that no longer exists cannot be a party to the contract. See more: 2022 BCSC 1452, https://t.co/wqYSDub0iw

[Krish Maharaj, PhD @Prof_Maharaj]

Does s. 25 of the Law and Equity Act, RSBC 1996, c. 253 permit the court to grant relief from an acceleration provision in the context of a mortgage that has become due? The BCSC said no in a recent case. See more: 2022 BCSC 1490, https://t.co/8SNsihLKHQ

[Krish Maharaj, PhD @Prof_Maharaj]

According to Cho v. Café La Foret Ltd, firing an employee for refusing to sign a statement admitting misconduct amounting to “cause” is wrongful dismissal, even if the misconduct alleged may have been just cause to dismiss. See more: 2022 BCSC 1560, https://t.co/13mo3ByfZl

[Krish Maharaj, PhD @Prof_Maharaj]

@MartineDennie @robsonhall Great stuff! Best of luck with it!

[Krish Maharaj, PhD @Prof_Maharaj]

@CramerHobbs Cans?? Call me old fashioned, but I will be continuing to get my wine in a box.

[Krish Maharaj, PhD @Prof_Maharaj]

3/3    Additionally, the Court also confirmed that a liquidated damages provision cannot be a penalty if it is limited to the amount that could have been made under the contract. See more: 2022 BCSC 1532, https://t.co/Uqo1bhjsh5

[Krish Maharaj, PhD @Prof_Maharaj]

🧵1/3    In C.G.I. Credit Guard Inc v. Kal Tire, the BCSC discussed what it means to repudiate a contract generally and how it differs from repudiation in contracts of employment.

[Krish Maharaj, PhD @Prof_Maharaj]

2/3    Although the Court appears to mix up the terms “with cause” and “without cause”, they rightly conclude that boorish behaviour that might fatally undermine a contract of employment does not necessarily have the same effect on an arm’s length commercial contract.

[Krish Maharaj, PhD @Prof_Maharaj]

3) “If a preference would arise, has the party seeking to avoid a disclaimer and complete the contract established that the equities support that result rather than a disclaimer”?

[Krish Maharaj, PhD @Prof_Maharaj]

What is the appropriate framework for determining whether a receiver may disclaim any of the debtor’s contracts? A recent BCSC case reaffirms the framework set out by Justice Fitzpatrick in Forjay, which asks the following questions:

[Krish Maharaj, PhD @Prof_Maharaj]

2) “Would a disclaimer enhance the value of the assets? If so, would a failure to disclaim the contract amount to preference in favour of one party”?