Disputes Involving Failure To Meet Service-Level Agreements By Canadian Tech Firms
NorthStar Earth & Space Inc. v. Spire Global Subsidiary, Inc. (2024 – Ontario Superior Court/arbitration context)
Summary: In this recent Ontario context, a commercial contract included a detailed Service Level Agreement specifying performance standards for satellites and required that “image data” meet specific contractual service levels. The satellites launched by Spire failed to produce images that met the SLA terms. NorthStar sought arbitration and also applied to the Ontario Superior Court for an injunction to enforce parts of the SLA, alleging anticipatory breach because Spire did not intend to meet the performance obligations specified in the SLA going forward.
Key Issue: Failure to meet express SLA performance standards and contractual obligations relating to continued service provision post‑failure.
Legal Importance: The dispute highlights that Canadian courts will engage with complex SLAs and enforce contractual remedies or interim relief when tech performance standards are unmet.
2. 6362222 Canada Inc. v. Prelco Inc. (2021/2022 SCC)
Summary: Although not labelled strictly as an “SLA case,” this Supreme Court of Canada case involved an IT services contract where Prelco supplied software and IT services. Prelco allegedly failed to deliver a functioning integrated management system as contracted, resulting in service failures and termination of the agreement. Prelco relied on a non‑liability clause to shield itself from damages, arguing it had negotiated the clause with the client.
Key Issue: Whether a non‑liability clause can absolve a tech services provider from liability when it fails to meet fundamental performance obligations (analogous to SLA failures).
Court’s Holding: The Supreme Court upheld the freedom to contract, enforcing non‑liability clauses in commercial contracts where they were fairly negotiated, even in technology service contexts.
Legal Lesson: Parties need to carefully draft SLA liability and remedy provisions because courts will respect clear limitation/exclusion clauses, even where service delivery fails.
3. A & W Food Services of Canada Ltd. v. Norand Corp. (Contract IT Performance Dispute)
Summary: In this commercial/IT case, Norand supplied a computer system to A & W Food Services with specific performance expectations. The hardware and associated software failed repeatedly, disrupting operations. A & W terminated and sued for breach.
Key Issue: Failure of technology services/hardware to perform as specified — conceptually similar to SLA breaches where a service fails to meet agreed performance metrics.
Court’s Action: The court allowed A & W’s action for breach of contract and awarded damages, including indirect losses tied to the system’s failure.
Legal Importance: Shows that when service/technology performance obligations are central to a contract, Canadian courts will enforce contractual obligations and award damages for failures in delivery/performance.
4. Ticketnet v. Air Canada (Software Development & Performance Obligations)
Summary: Ticketnet contracted Air Canada to develop automated ticketing software that would be delivered and operable. Air Canada refused to provide the completed software for no valid reason, effectively failing to meet its performance obligations.
Key Issue: Failure to deliver software as required under the contract (akin to a service level not met).
Court’s Outcome: Ticketnet succeeded in its claim. The court awarded damages for breach and allowed recovery outside limitation clauses, as the breach frustrated the contract’s core purpose.
Legal Takeaway: In Canadian tech/service contracts, failing to meet fundamental deliverables (like software that works to specification) can constitute a material breach and allow contractual remedies.
5. Kanitz v. Rogers Cable Inc. (2002 ON SC – Technology Service Contract Interpretation)
Summary: While not a typical SLA quality/uptime breach case, this Ontario Superior Court decision is foundational for technology service contracts. Rogers Cable customers sued over amended user agreements relating to internet/telecom services.
Key Issue: Whether posting terms (including dispute and service provisions) online constituted valid contract modification notice.
Court’s Holding: Website posting sufficed as notice. This case is often cited to understand how Canadian courts interpret service agreements and contractual notice terms in tech contexts.
Legal Lesson: Proper contract formation and notice are critical. If SLA or service performance terms are modified without clear notice, clients may have grounds for dispute.
6. Hunter Engineering Co. v. Syncrude Canada Ltd. (1989 SCC – Contractual Breach and Liability Limits)
Summary: In this Supreme Court of Canada decision, Syncrude contracted for engineering components that turned out to be defective. Although this is a supply contract rather than an SLA, it’s a leading Canadian contract law case on contractual breach and limitation of liability clauses — principles directly applicable to SLA disputes where breaches trigger liability limits.
Key Issue: Whether a limitation of liability clause protects a breaching party even when the breach deprives the other party of “substantially the whole benefit” of the contract.
Court’s Decision: The majority upheld the limitation clause, holding that clear and unambiguous contractual terms govern liability.
Relevance to SLA Disputes: SLA contracts often include liability limits or caps. This case is a cornerstone for assessing whether providers can limit damages when SLAs are breached.
7. Bhasin v. Hrynew (2014 SCC – Duty of Honest Performance in Contracts)
Summary: The Supreme Court of Canada recognized a general duty of honest performance in contractual relations. In Bhasin, the court found a breach of the duty where one party misled the other, even if the express performance terms were otherwise unambiguous.
Key Issue: Duty of good faith and honest performance in contract execution.
Legal Importance for SLA Disputes: Although not an SLA case per se, this decision imposes an implied contractual duty on Canadian suppliers and tech firms to perform honestly. In SLA contexts, failing to disclose problems or falsely representing service metrics could engage this duty, providing an additional ground for dispute beyond strict SLA terms.
Key Legal Principles Illustrated by These Cases
| Principle | How It Applies to SLA/Tech Disputes |
|---|---|
| Enforceability of SLA terms | Courts and arbitration forums will enforce clear SLA performance standards and remedies (e.g., NorthStar v. Spire). |
| Liability limitations | Well‑drafted limitation/exclusion clauses can protect service providers, barring unconscionability (Hunter Engineering; 6362222 Canada Inc v. Prelco). |
| Material breach and remedies | Failure to deliver core services (software, uptime, responsiveness) can be a material breach, giving rise to damages (A & W Food Services; Ticketnet v. Air Canada). |
| Contract modification and notice | Tech service contracts, including SLAs, must properly notify users of changes (Kanitz v. Rogers). |
| Honest performance | Breach of honest performance can underpin liability where a provider misleads about service fulfillment (Bhasin v. Hrynew). |
Practical Takeaways for SLA Disputes in Canada
Clarity of terms matters: The more measurable and precise an SLA (uptime, response time, remedies), the stronger the position in dispute resolution.
Remedies must be specified: Including service credits, termination rights, or damages avoids ambiguity in enforcement.
Liability clauses are critical: Clear exclusion or limitation clauses are usually upheld unless unconscionable.
Good faith obligations exist: Even where SLA metrics are precise, honest performance duties may create additional remedies if a provider misrepresents performance.
RELATED Blog
comments