Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited brought a challenge the electricity deal; it said surging changes in electricity prices required renegotiation of contract terms. the Supreme Court ruled courts can't compel renegotiation and Hydro-Québec was not obligated to reopen negotiations.
Arguments made in favour of renegotiating the Churchill Falls-Hydro Quebec deal did not go over swimmingly in the Supreme Court of Canada on Tuesday.
www.cbc.caThe Supreme Court of Canada says there is no legal obligation to reopen the 1969 Churchill Falls energy deal that has been highly profitable for Hydro-Quebec but much less so for Newfoundland and Labrador.
www.bnnbloomberg.caCourts can’t force parties to renegotiate contracts, the Supreme Court has confirmed. Unexpected changes in electricity prices didn’t mean that Hydro-Québec had to share its profits from the Churchill Falls power station. … Both the trial court and the Court of Appeal ruled for Hydro-Québec. The majority at the Supreme Court also ruled for Hydro-Québec. It said the trial judge was not wrong to decide that the contract wasn’t relational, and that Hydro-Québec didn’t have to renegotiate. The...
www.scc-csc.caIt is one of Canada’s bitterest interprovincial feuds, the notorious 1969 Churchill Falls hydro deal between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador
www.reddeerexpress.comOn May 12, 1969, the appellant Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited and the respondent Hydro-Québec entered into a contract pursuant to which the respondent undertook to purchase almost all the power generated by a hydroelectric plant that was to be built on the Churchill River in Labrador. That contract, which had a 65-year term, set a fixed price for the power that was to decrease in stages over time. The contract contained no price adjustment clause.
www.scc-csc.caInnu Nation leaders announced Tuesday they're seeking damages over the destruction of their land and culture from construction of the Churchill Falls generating station decades ago.
www.cbc.ca