New Wine in Old Bottles: Corrupt Foreign Contracts in Canadian Private Law

Karton, Joshua; Shervill, Jenna-Dawn

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19054-9_2

New Wine in Old Bottles: Corrupt Foreign Contracts in Canadian Private Law

Joshua Karton⁵ &
Jenna-Dawn Shervill⁶

Chapter

1199 Accesses

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 11))

Abstract

The Canadian criminal law on foreign corruption recently experienced great upheaval, as Canada worked to bring its legislation up to international standards following years of inadequate substantive law and lackadaisical prosecutions. Canadian private law, by contrast, has remained highly stable on paper, but longstanding doctrines have been effectively applied to modern, internationalized forms of corruption.

The chapter begins with an overview of the general criminal law doctrines relating to corruption, then discusses the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and its application in practice, including the first conviction of an individual under the Act in 2013. It then turns to private law, surveying the tort and equitable remedies available to victims of corruption, and finally the contract law doctrines applicable to corrupt contracts.

Since Canada is a mixed jurisdiction, the chapter contains an internal comparative element. The Canadian common law and Quebec approaches are compared, and revealed to be more similar than one might expect. Modern Canadian common law tort and equitable remedies, and the corresponding provisions of the Code civil du Québec, provide a range of means by which both direct and indirect victims of corruption can recover compensatory damages. They also serve social objectives by providing for disgorgement of corruptly-acquired gains in most cases. The contract law doctrines relating to illegality and agency have become more flexible over time, so as to permit courts to enforce or not enforce contracts or severable parts of contracts as justice dictates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
SC 1998, c 34 [CFPOA].
2.
4 November 1999, CETS No 174 (entered into force 1 November 2003).
3.
J Nelson, ‘Canada not immune from corruption, E&Y study finds’ (11 June 2014) The Globe & Mail.
4.
ibid.
5.
RSC 1985, c C-46 [Criminal Code].
6.
The definition of “organization” is expansive and includes public and corporate bodies, societies, companies, firms, partnerships, unions, municipalities, and other associations created for a common purpose. Ibid, s 2.
7.
R v Sault Ste Marie, [1978] 2 SCR 1299.
8.
Criminal Code, s 22.2.
9.
ibid, s 465(1)(c)-(d).
10.
ibid, s 465(3)-(4).
11.
ibid, s 734(1).
12.
ibid, s 462.37(1).
13.
ibid, s 462.37(2).
14.
ibid, s 732.1(3.1).
15.
R v Brown, (1956) 116 CCC 287 (Ont CA) at para 11 (quoting R v Gross, [1946] OR 1 at 9).
16.
ibid. See generally C Nicholls et al, Corruption and the Misuse of Public Office, 2nd edn (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011) at para 17.26.
17.
Criminal Code, s 123(3).
18.
ibid, s 426.
19.
Nicholls (n 16), at para 17.29, citing R v Kelly, [1992] 2 SCR 170 and R v Arnold, [1992] 2 SCR 208. Moreover, the agent need not have had the intention to carry out the purpose for which the prohibited offer was made. R v Wile, (1990) 58 CCC (3d) 85 (Ont CA) at para 20.
20.
Criminal Code, s 426(2).
21.
ibid, s 426(4).
22.
R v Wile (n 19), at para 20.
23.
ibid, s 354(1).
24.
ibid, s 355.2-355.4.
25.
ibid, s 462.31(2).
26.
ibid, s 380.1.
27.
ibid, s 380.1(a)-(b).
28.
ibid, s 336.
29.
ibid, s 366.
30.
ibid, ss 366, 368(2).
31.
ibid, s 368.
32.
ibid, s 397(1).
33.
ibid, s 423.
34.
ibid, s 423.1(1).
35.
OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials, 17 December 1997, 37 ILM 1 (convention entered into force 15 February 1999; signed by Canada 17 December 1997; ratified by Canada 17 December 1998) [OECD Convention].
36.
The other corruption-related treaties ratified by Canada are: UN Convention Against Corruption, 31 October 2003, 2349 UNTS 41 (convention entered into force 14 December 2005; signed by Canada 21 May 2004; ratified by Canada 2 October 2007); UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, 15 November 2000, 2225 UNTS 209 (convention entered into force 29 September 2003; signed by Canada 14 December 2000; ratified by Canada 13 May 2002); Inter-American Convention Against Corruption, 29 March 1996, OASTS B-58 (convention entered into force 6 March 1997; signed by Canada 7 June 1999; ratified by Canada 1 June 2000).
37.
CFPOA, ss 3-5.
38.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, SC 2001, c 32.
39.
Transparency International, Progress Report 2011, Enforcement of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention (2011); OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions, Canada: Phase 3, Report on the Application of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the 2009 Revised Recommendation on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions (18 March 2011); OAS, Committee of Experts, Organization of American States, Mechanism for Follow-Up on the Implementation of the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption: Canada – Final Report OEA/Ser.L/SG/MESICIC/Doc.270/10, rev 4 (2011) at para 106.
40.
See below, Sect. 2.2.2.4.
41.
See also Nicholls (n 16), at para 17.31.
42.
See Libman v The Queen, [1985] 2 SCR 178 [Libman].
43.
T Tedesco, ‘OECD praises Canada’s anti-corruption efforts’ (27 May 2013) The Financial Post.
44.
Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development Canada, ‘Strengthening Canada’s Fight Against Foreign Bribery’ (5 January 2013) online at www.international.gc.ca
45.
Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, RSC 2013, c 26, s 3(2); Debates of the Senate, 41st Parl, 1st Sess, Vol 148, No 136 (12 February 2013) at 1520; House of Commons Debates, 41st Parl, 1st Sess, Vol 146, No 255 (24 May 2013) at 1000.
46.
See Tedesco (n 43). The federal government was to report back to the OECD on its progress by March 2014; at the time of writing, no findings had yet been shared publicly.
47.
CFPOA, s 2.
48.
ibid, s 5(1)(c).
49.
ibid, s 5(4).
50.
ibid, s 5(5).
51.
ibid, s 2.
52.
OECD Convention, Art 1(1).
53.
HJ Chang, ‘An Overview of Foreign Anti-Corruption Laws in Canada’ (February 2012) International Business Bulletin at 2, online at www.blaney.com
54.
CFPOA, s 3(4). See s 3(4) for an explanation of “acts of a routine nature”, eg, the issuance of a permit.
55.
ibid, s 3(3). See s 3(3) for details on “reasonable expenses incurred in good faith”.
56.
M Morrison, P Schabas and T Wong, ‘Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act: What You Need to Know, and Why’ (2013), online at www.cba.org
57.
Nicholls (n 16), at para 17.33.
58.
The wording of section 4 is based on that used in the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. However, in Canada, the accounting offences are criminal only and do not include civil penalties.
59.
R v Niko Resources Ltd, [2012] AWLD 4565 (QB).
60.
ibid at paras 57–66.
61.
R v Karigar, 2013 ONSC 5199.
62.
ibid at para 29.
63.
See R v Cooper (no 2), (1977) 35 CCC (2d) 35 (Ont CA); R v Boudreau (1978), 25 NSR (2d) 63 (NS Sup Ct); R v Woon, 2005 CanLII 53776 (QC CQ); R v Gyles, 2003 CanLII 53665 (ON SC); R v Byrne (2009), 286 Nfld & PEIR 191 (PC); R v Serré, 2013 ONSC 1732.
64.
See R v Dobis, (2002) 58 OR (3d) 538 (CA) (on employee embezzlement); R v Bogart, (2002) 61 OR (3d) 75 (CA) [on OHIP fraud]; R v Drabinsky, 2011 ONCA 582 (on management fraud).
65.
R v Karigar, 2014 ONSC 3093 at para 7.
66.
ibid at paras 8, 36.
67.
‘Strengthening Canada’s Fight Against Foreign Bribery’ (n 44); Tedesco (n 43).
68.
SM Hutton & P Beaudry, ‘Canada Steps Up: The work of two anti-bribery task forces shows the OECD’s criticisms were premature’ (2011–12) 30 International Financial Law Review 58.
69.
GE Kaiser, Corporate Crime and Civil Liability (Markham, ON, LexisNexis, 2012) at 638. The Uniform Law Conference of Canada has proposed a Uniform Illegal Contracts Act, but it has not yet been adopted. See www.ulcc.ca. The CcQ articles discussed in Sect. 2.3.2.2 predate, but are similar to, the Act’s provisions.
70.
Quebec law will be presented in its official English translations, although key terms will also be given in the original French. Scholarly writings and texts without official English versions are rendered in French.
71.
Criminal Code, ss 11, 741.2. See London Life Insurance v Zavitz (1992), 5 CPC (3d) 14 at 17 (BC CA).
72.
Kaiser (n 69), at 610.
73.
See www.snclavalinclassaction.com for more information.
74.
S Bell, ‘SNC-Lavalin files $2-million claim against former VP Riadh Ben Aissa, Cynthia Vanier’ (12 July 2013) The National Post.
75.
Email from L Dultra, Administrator, Global Corporate Communications, SNC-Lavalin, to author Shervill, on file with author.
76.
PM Perell, ‘Intermeddlers or Strangers to the Breach of Trust or Fiduciary Duty’ (1998) 21 The Advocates’ Quarterly 94.
77.
See Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc v Marinaccio, 2012 ONCA 650 at para 33 [Enbridge], Ruiter Engineering & Construction Ltd v 441734 Ontario Ltd (1989), 57 DLR (4th) 140 (CA) [Ruiter], and Oshawa Group Ltd v Great American Insurance Co (1982), 132 DLR (3d) 453 (CA).
78.
Industries & General Mortgage Co v Lewis, [1949] 2 All ER 573 (KBD) at 575 [Lewis].
79.
Hovenden & Sons v Milhoff (1900), 83 LT 41; Frigidaire Corp v Steedman, [1931] OR 285 (CA) at 287 [Steedman]; Barry v Stoney Point Canning Co (1917), 55 SCR 51 [Barry].
80.
Optech Inc v Sharma, 2011 ONSC 680 at para 23; Barry (n 79).
81.
Lewis (n 78). The person making the payment must accept the risk that the recipient will not disclose the payment. Grant v The Gold Exploration and Development Syndicate, Ltd, [1900] 1 QB 233 (Eng CA); Hitchcock v Sykes, [1914] 49 SCR 403.
82.
Ruiter (n 77), at 591–92, citing Barry (n 79), at 74.
83.
PM Perell, ‘Remedies for the Victims of a Bribe’ (1999–2000) 22 The Advocates’ Quarterly 198, 201.
84.
ibid, 214.
85.
ibid, 213–14.
86.
See 671122 Ontario Ltd v Sagaz Industries Canada, 2001 SCC 59 [Sagaz].
87.
Canada Cement Lafarge Ltd v British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate, [1983] 1 SCR 452.
88.
Kaiser (n 69), at 549.
89.
35445 Alberta Ltd v Transamerica Life Insurance Co of Canada, [1996] 9 WWR 281 (Alta QB), aff’d [1998] 10 WWR 704 (Alta CA).
90.
Direct actions for breach of fiduciary duty against the fiduciary himself will be discussed below under equitable causes of action.
91.
Harris v Leikin Group Inc, 2011 ONCA 790 at para 8; Air Canada v M & L Travel Ltd, [1993] 3 SCR 787 at 811–12 [Air Canada].
92.
Enbridge (n 77), at para 27. See also Air Canada (n 91) (“fraudulently and dishonestly” means “the taking of a knowingly wrongful risk resulting in prejudice to the beneficiary” at 826).
93.
ibid at 811. See also Keeton v The Bank of Nova Scotia, 2009 ONCA 662 at para 82.
94.
See, eg, Canson Enterprises Ltd v Boughton and Co, [1991] 3 SCR 534.
95.
See, eg, Sagaz (n 86).
96.
Enbridge (n 77).
97.
ibid at para 11.
98.
ibid.
99.
ibid at para 16, citing Perez v Galambos, 2009 SCC 48 at paras 68–70; Elder Advocates of Alberta Society v Alberta, 2011 SCC 24 at paras 30–34.
100.
(1984), 18 DLR (4th) 759 (ONCA) [Lavigne].
101.
ibid at para 9.
102.
ibid at paras 13–15.
103.
ibid at para 16.
104.
Art 1309 CcQ.
105.
ibid, Arts 1310, 1311, 1314.
106.
ibid, Art 1366.
107.
ibid.
108.
See Sect. 2.3.2.4 for more information on mandates under the CcQ.
109.
ibid, Art 2138.
110.
ibid, Arts 2146, 2184.
111.
P Martel, ‘Les Devoirs de Loyauté des Administrateurs de Sociétés Par Actions Fédérales – Impact du Code Civil du Québec’ (2008) 42 Revue Juridique Thémis 149, 219.
112.
[1998] RJQ 430 at paras 108–109.
113.
Garland v Consumers’ Gas Co, 2004 SCC 25 at para 30.
114.
Ruiter (n 77).
115.
ibid at para 34, citing the US Restatement of the Law of Restitution (ALI 1937), 809–10.
116.
ibid.
117.
ibid at para 24.
118.
ibid at paras 25–26.
119.
[1997] 2 SCR 217 at para 17.
120.
ibid at para 45.
121.
(1993), [1994] 1 All ER 1, [1994] 1 AC 324 (UKPC) [Reid].
122.
ibid at 331.
123.
(1890), 45 Ch D 1 (CA).
124.
Reid (n 121) at 336.
125.
ICBC v Lo, 2006 BCCA 584.
126.
ibid at paras 46–48.
127.
ibid at para 33.
128.
Sagaz (n 86).
129.
ibid at para 30.
130.
ibid at para 31, citing Bazley v Curry, [1999] 2 SCR 534 at para 31.
131.
ibid at para 32.
132.
ibid at para 35.
133.
ibid at para 47–48.
134.
ibid at paras 50–57.
135.
RSC, 1985, c C-34.
136.
Kaiser (n 69) at 10.
137.
Libman (n 42). This connection is normally proved by evidence of loss or damage to Canadian purchasers from artificially higher prices.
138.
Competition Act (n 135), s 36(1).
139.
RSO 1990, c S.5, part XXIII.1.
140.
As Chief Justice Ritchie observed in an early Supreme Court of Canada judgment on the matter, “[i]t would be a curious state of the law if, after the Legislature had prohibited a transaction, parties could enter into it, and, in defiance of the law, compel courts to enforce and give effect to their illegal transactions.” Bank of Toronto v Perkins, [1883] 8 SCR 603 at 610. See also Weidman v Shragge, [1912] 46 SCR 1.
141.
See, eg, Greenberg v Lake Simcoe Ice Supply Co, (1917), 34 OLR 32 (a contract was held unenforceable at the behest of the vendor because the buyer had attempted to bribe the seller’s clerk); and Barry (n 79) (a buyer of goods repudiated the contract because his agent had received a secret commission from the seller’s agent).
142.
The two leading modern cases are Continental Bank of Canada v Canada, [1998] 2 SCR 298; Still v Minister of National Revenue [1998] 1 FC 549 [Still].
143.
SM Waddams, The Law of Contracts, 6th edn (Toronto, Carswell, 2010) at §565.
144.
See generally ibid, citing, eg, Lemenda Trading Co Ltd v African Middle East Petroleum Co Ltd, [1988] 1 QB 448.
145.
See, eg, Etler v Kertesz (1960), 26 DLR (2d) 209 (Ont CA) (contract illegal under the governing Austrian law); Gillespie Management Corp v Terrace Properties, [1989] 39 BCLR (2d) 337 (contract illegal under the law of Oregon, the place of performance). See also Walkerville Brewing Co v Mayrand (1929), 63 OLR 573 (Ont CA) (illegality under foreign law must be proven in the Canadian court proceeding).
146.
See, eg, Still (n 142); Maschinenfabrik Seydelmann K-G v Presswood Brothers Ltd (1966), 53 DLR (2d) 224 (Ont CA).
147.
In Gesimar v Sun Alliance & London Insurance Ltd, a contract to insure goods that were illegally imported was held to be unenforceable. [1978] QB 383. The result in Gesimar has been criticized as overly harsh. See, eg, Waddams (n 143), at §565.
148.
This type of case often involves the sale, lease, or construction of premises that are used for an illegal purpose, such as a brothel or narcotic production facility. However, the rule may apply in cases of corruption.
149.
Genovese v York Lambton Corp (1969), [1970] 1 OR 427 (CA).
150.
St John Shipping Corp v Joseph Rank Ltd, [1957] 1 QB 267 at 283. See also Kiriri Cotton Co Ltd v Dewani, [1960] AC 190 at 205 (PC), applying the same doctrine from the reverse perspective (it would be inequitable to permit a party that has knowingly participated in illegality to enforce a contract against an innocent party).
151.
The evidentiary burden is a balance of probabilities. See, eg, Kernwood Ltd v Renegade Capital Corp (1993), 9 BLR (2d) 1n (Ont Gen Div).
152.
Waddams (n 143), at §581.
153.
Transport North American Express Inc v New Solutions Financial Corp, [2004] 1 SCR 249.
154.
See Ruiter (n 77); Steedman (n 79).
155.
Waddams (n 143), at §579; North Saskatchewan Seeds Ltd v Couch (1960), 32 WWR 253 (Sask Dist Ct).
156.
See, eg, Ruiter (n 77), at para 19, citing an English case, Logicrose Ltd v Scotland United Football Club Ltd, [1988] 1 WLR 1256 at 1261 (ChD).
157.
See, eg, McDonald v Fellows, [1979] 17 AR 330 (CA); Ouston v Zurowski (1985), 63 BCLR 89 (CA).
158.
Arts 1410-1413 CcQ.
159.
The distinction between cause and object was not made in some of the older cases, but the line of authority appears to be consistent. See, eg, Thompson c Sénécal, (1894) 3 BR 455; La Compagnie de Pulpe de Metabetchouan c Paquet, (1906) 29 CS 211; Québec (PG) c Brunet, [1994] RJQ 337 (CA).
160.
2005 QCCA 942.
161.
ibid at para 42.
162.
Art 1417 CcQ. The nullité relative of a contract arises when voiding the contract is necessary for the protection of an individual interest, such as when a party’s consent is vitiated. Ibid, Art 1419.
163.
ibid, Art 1418.
164.
ibid, Art 1422.
165.
ibid, Art 1699. See, eg, Côté c Arsenault, 2008 QCCA 1815 at para 6 (“Cette restitution était ici manifestement possible, la mesure de celle-ci relevant par ailleurs, selon l’article 1699 CcQ, d’un certain pouvoir discrétionnaire du juge.”). This discretionary power was a new addition to the 1994 version of the CcQ. Silent Signal Inc c Pervin, 1996 CanLII 5967 at para (QC CA). Previously, courts had no choice but to order restitution of all performance once a contract was held to be absolutely null.
166.
See, eg, Amusements St-Gervais inc c Legault & al, JE 2000-550 (CA); Québec (Sous-ministre du Revenu) c D(B), 2002 CanLII 37029 (QC CA) at paras 32–37. The costs of restitution are normally borne by the parties in proportion to the value of performance returned, but if one party has acted in bad faith or the restitution is due to his fault, that party must pay the costs of restitution for both parties. Art 1705 CcQ.
167.
ibid, Art 3111.
168.
ibid, Art 3112.
169.
ibid, Art 3113.
170.
See, eg, Weitzman v Hendin (1989), 61 DLR (4th) 525 (Ont CA); leave to appeal refused (1990), 105 NR 398 (SCC). The relationship cannot be ascertained solely from the use of the words like “agency”, “agent”, or “commission”. See, eg, Hassard v Peace River Co-operative Seed Growers Assn (1954), 2 DLR 50 (SCC).
171.
See, eg, Sagaz (n 86), at para 58.
172.
The principal may be vicariously liable for the agent’s tortious or inequitable conduct. See Sect. 2.3.1.3.
173.
Ruiter (n 77), at para 2. Similarly, in Enbridge (n 77) and Lavigne (n 100), the principals were held bound to the contracts entered into by their corrupt agents.
174.
This occurred in Ruiter (n 77).
175.
Midland Doherty Ltd v Rohrer (1985), 20 DLR (4th) 188 (NS CA).
176.
Peterson v Dominion Tobacco Co (1922), 52 OLR 598 (Ont CA); aff’d [1923] AC 709 (PC). For a more recent example, see Bodnar v Real Estate Council (British Columbia) (1994), 43 RPR (2d) 113 (BC CA).
177.
See, eg, Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v Christian (1974), 49 DLR (3d) 742 (NS CA) [Christian]; Mahesan v Malaysia Housing Society (1977), [1979] AC 374 (PC).
178.
Peso Silver Mines Ltd v Cropper (1966), [1966] SCR 673; Lavigne (n 100); GL Black Holdings Ltd v Peddle (1998), 226 AR 302 (QB), aff’d (1999), 73 Alta LR (3d) 389 (CA).
179.
McLeod v Sweezey, [1944] SCR 111; Ruiter (n 77); Calbar Securities Ltd v Toole Peet Co (1983), 29 Alta LR (2d) 236 (CA); additional reasons at (1984), 30 Alta LR (2d) 286 (CA).
180.
Laskin v Bache & Co (1971), 23 DLR (3d) 385 (Ont CA). If the agency contract were illegal, the principal would lack clean hands and be barred from invoking equitable remedies. See, eg, Vita Credit Union Ltd v Stotski (1980), [1981] ILR 1-1356 (Man QB); De Laval Separator Co v Walworth (1908), 13 BCR 295 (BC CA); Holding v Wood (1932), [1932] 1 WWR 612 (Sask CA).
181.
See, eg, Christian (n 177).
182.
Art 2130 CcQ.
183.
ibid, Art 2157.
184.
ibid, Art 2158.
185.
ibid, Art 2163.
186.
ibid.
187.
As noted above, restitution may be refused or modified if the third party is at fault.
188.
This is the combined effect of Arts 1526-1529 CcQ.
189.
Art 2138 CcQ.
190.
ibid, Arts 2146-47.
191.
Agents must return to the principals even things not owed to the principals, deducting only what is owed to the agent by reason of the mandate. Ibid, Arts 2184-85. In the case of information, the agent must disgorge any enrichment derived from use of the information. In the case of property, the agent must pay an appropriate rent or interest on the sums used. Ibid, Art 2146.
192.
ibid, Art 2088.
193.
[1981] 1 SCR 11.
194.
Martel Building Ltd v Canada, [2000] 2 SCR 860 at para 88. The duty to treat tenderers “fairly and equally” is specific to the tender context, but is comparable in its effects to the broad duty of good faith that applies to all contracting parties in civil law jurisdictions.
195.
ibid at para 89.
196.
See D Percy, ‘It’s My Privilege: Developments in The Law of Tenders with Particular Reference to The Scope of Contract A, Bid Shopping and The Owner’s Discretion in The Award of Contracts’ (2004) 40 Construction Law Review 4.
197.
There appears to be no case directly on point, but this seems unarguable. Judgments in some non-bribery cases have included statements in obiter to the effect that accepting a bribe would violate the duty to treat tenderers fairly and equally. Irving Shipbuilding Inc v Canada (Attorney General) 2009 FCA 116 at para 62; Powder Mountain Resorts Ltd v British Columbia, 2001 BCCA 619 at para 60.
198.
MJB Enterprises Ltd v Defence Construction (1951) Ltd, [1999] 1 SCR 619; Calgary (City) v Northern Construction Co (1986), 42 Alta LR (2d) 1 (CA).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, Queen’s University, Macdonald Hall, 128 Union St, K7L3N6, Kingston, ON, Canada
Joshua Karton
Faculty of Law, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
Jenna-Dawn Shervill

Authors

Joshua Karton
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Jenna-Dawn Shervill
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua Karton .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

UNIDROIT, Rome, Italy
Michael Joachim Bonell
Centre of European Law and Politics, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Olaf Meyer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Karton, J., Shervill, JD. (2015). New Wine in Old Bottles: Corrupt Foreign Contracts in Canadian Private Law. In: Bonell, M., Meyer, O. (eds) The Impact of Corruption on International Commercial Contracts. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 11. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19054-9_2

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19054-9_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19053-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19054-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics