Publication
La Cour suprême du Canada tranche : les cadres ne pourront se syndiquer au Québec
Le 19 avril dernier, la Cour suprême du Canada a rendu une décision fort attendue en matière de syndicalisation des cadres.
Royaume-Uni | Publication
Subject to any particular restrictions under applicable local law, the parties to a joint venture or shareholders’ agreement are generally free to choose any governing law and jurisdiction clauses. There are no UK statutory restrictions in this respect for joint ventures.1
Choice of law and jurisdiction are invariably negotiated clauses, but parties to a proposed joint venture may be reluctant to invest significant time and resources in the issues which arise where the parties are in dispute and the collaborative objective has failed. However, appropriate choice of law and jurisdiction clauses are critical issues to manage risk if and when a dispute does arise. Unfavourable choice of law and/or jurisdiction clauses can adversely impact a party’s ability to seek legal recourse (or to defend a claim) against the other and also affect related issues such as the costs of a dispute.
There are various factors that the participants in a joint venture need to take into account when choosing the law which governs the joint venture or shareholders agreement and the dispute resolution mechanism and jurisdiction. We consider these below.
A governing law clause determines the substantive law that will apply to the interpretation of an agreement (i.e. legal rights and obligations of the parties). It does not govern how disputes are to be resolved.
A jurisdiction clause determines how disputes will be resolved (e.g. courts, arbitration, expert determination) and may also govern the procedure to be followed to commence and conduct a dispute.
It is imperative for parties to (i) include both governing law and jurisdiction clauses (including, in the case of arbitration, drafting which constitutes an express arbitration agreement) and (ii) employ clear and unambiguous drafting. Failure to do so can lead to lengthy and costly disputes over which courts/tribunals should determine a dispute and which substantive law will be applied. If the relationship between the parties breaks down, ambiguities are also likely to be exploited for tactical purposes, e.g. to frustrate or delay a genuine claim.
Choice of law impacts the rights and obligations under the contract, both with respect to the interpretation of the contract’s express terms and any terms which may be implied by the substantive law chosen by the parties.
The parties’ choice of jurisdiction has a significant impact on the cost, conduct, location and ultimate outcome of any dispute. This applies even if the parties chose arbitration, because the ‘seat’ (national jurisdiction) of the arbitration impacts factors such as the conduct of an arbitration and the extent to which the tribunal’s award can be challenged.
Some of the issues that should be considered are:
Publication
Le 19 avril dernier, la Cour suprême du Canada a rendu une décision fort attendue en matière de syndicalisation des cadres.
Publication
Le budget 2024 propose d’élargir la portée de certains pouvoirs permettant à l’ARC de demander des renseignements aux contribuables tout en prévoyant de nouvelles conséquences pour les contribuables contrevenants.
Publication
L'impôt minimum de remplacement (IMR) est un impôt sur le revenu additionnel prévu dans la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu (Canada) (la « Loi ») auquel sont assujettis les particuliers et certaines fiducies qui pourraient autrement avoir recours à certaines déductions et exemptions et à certains crédits pour réduire leur impôt sur le revenu fédéral canadien régulier.
Abonnez-vous et restez à l’affût des nouvelles juridiques, informations et événements les plus récents...
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023