In Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. v Pine Valley Enterprises Inc., 2024 SCC 20 (Earthco), the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) made a significant shift in the interpretation of exclusion clauses in contracts. Prior to Earthco, statutory warranties could only be excluded through clear and specific contractual language, as established in the landmark case of Hunter Engineering Co. v Syncrude Canada Ltd., 1989 CanLII 129 (SCC). This long-standing precedent required explicit wording to waive statutory warranties.

The Earthco decision, however, introduces a new approach, focusing on the objective intent of the contracting parties. Now, even in the absence of explicit language, a statutory implied warranty can be excluded if the broader context of the contract demonstrates that the parties intended such an exclusion. For construction professionals, this ruling redefines the way warranty clauses should be drafted and interpreted, offering both opportunities and risks when structuring contracts.

Key context for understanding the Earthco decision

In the Earthco case, Pine Valley Enterprises Inc. (“Pine Valley”) purchased soil from Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. (“Earthco”), which was required to meet certain standards. Although Earthco’s soil test results were six weeks old, Pine Valley chose not to conduct its own updated testing, instead opting for immediate delivery to meet project deadlines. The purchase order included two exclusion clauses, one of which stated Pine Valley’s right to test the soil, while the other indicated that Earthco would not be liable for the quality of the soil if Pine Valley waived the right to test.

The soil, however, failed to meet the required standards, leading to project issues. Pine Valley sued Earthco for breach of contract, arguing that the soil quality did not align with the standards in the contract. Initially, the trial judge upheld the exclusion clauses, finding them sufficient to waive statutory implied warranties. However, the Court of Appeal disagreed, ruling that the exclusion clauses were insufficient because they lacked explicit reference to statutory implied warranties.

What construction professionals need to know about exclusion clauses after Earthco

The SCC’s decision in Earthco emphasizes the objective intent of the contracting parties over the need for explicit language to exclude statutory warranties. The Court clarified that “no particular magic words” are necessary for an exclusion clause to be effective. Even in the absence of specific language, the exclusion clauses in Earthco were deemed sufficient to waive statutory implied warranties because they reflected the parties’ intent to limit liability. The SCC reinforced that freedom of contract should take precedence over rigid statutory provisions when the parties’ intent is clear.

This ruling highlights the importance of documenting intent in construction contracts, where materials, timelines, and quality are often sources of risk. Construction professionals should be aware that even if statutory warranties are not explicitly addressed, the intent to exclude them can be inferred from the contract’s broader context.

Essential best practices for drafting construction contracts post-Earthco

Given the Earthco ruling, construction professionals must adopt new practices to manage risks effectively. Below are key steps to consider when drafting construction contracts:

  1. Assess risks carefully: Understanding the quality and condition of materials is critical in construction. Ensure that all expectations regarding quality standards are clearly identified, and document whether testing is required before acceptance.
  2. Prioritize clear, express exclusion language in construction contracts: While Earthco provides more flexibility in interpreting exclusion clauses, ambiguity can still lead to disputes. It is best practice to include explicit language in construction contracts that clearly states whether statutory warranties are excluded. This helps minimize misunderstandings and reduces the risk of future litigation.
  3. Document and recognize the role of objective intent: In light of the Earthco decision, courts will consider the parties’ objective intent when interpreting contracts. Even if exclusion clauses are not explicitly worded, it is crucial to document the intent clearly, such as through evidence of prior discussions, emails, or the broader context of the contract. For construction projects with time constraints and fluctuating site conditions, demonstrating that both parties understood and agreed to assume certain risks can help support the enforceability of exclusion clauses, even without explicit language.
  4. Seek express warranties when needed: Construction projects often involve complex materials with specific performance requirements. If there are concerns about a product’s suitability for a particular purpose, seek express warranties from the supplier to protect your project’s success and avoid liability.
  5. Review and update standard contracts: Many standard construction contracts include general exclusion clauses that might not address the specific circumstances of a project. Consider revising these templates to explicitly account for the exclusion of statutory warranties where the parties’ intent is clear. Using plain language will ensure that all parties understand the terms and risks they are assuming.

Protect your business: the importance of clear contract language in the wake of Earthco

The Earthco decision empowers parties in construction projects to negotiate risk allocations more freely. However, this flexibility introduces the possibility of increased litigation, as ambiguous clauses may lead to disputes over the scope and intent of the exclusions. To mitigate these risks, it remains crucial to include clear and unambiguous language in construction contracts that reflects the parties’ intentions.

Given the potential impact of statutory warranties on construction projects, professionals should take steps to safeguard their work. By following the best practices outlined above, construction professionals can reduce the risk of disputes and better manage the liabilities associated with statutory warranties.

Conclusion: a landmark decision with lasting implications

The Supreme Court’s decision in Earthco marks a pivotal moment for contract law, particularly for the construction industry, where material quality and compliance with standards are paramount. By emphasizing the importance of objective intent over rigid language, this ruling empowers parties to allocate risks more flexibly—but it also places greater responsibility on them to clearly document and communicate their agreements.

Construction professionals should take proactive steps to review their contracts, prioritize transparency, and mitigate potential disputes by aligning their agreements with these evolving legal principles. By understanding the broader implications of Earthco, you can better navigate the complexities of contractual relationships and safeguard your business from unforeseen liabilities.

For more guidance on how this decision may impact your projects, reach out to our Construction Litigation team for expert advice tailored to your needs.