BC moves to bring their Serious Injury or Illness Leave in line with most other Canadian provinces with the introduction of Bill 30. Introduced on October 20, 2025, Bill 30 would amend the Employment Standards act (ESA) to increase the length of unpaid Serious Illness or Injury Leave to 27 weeks in a 52-week period. This pushes the province ahead of Alberta and Quebec, who provide 16 and 26 weeks, respectively, for such leave.

‍

The new Serious Illness or Injury Leave introduced by Bill 30 is in addition to employer’s obligations under the BC Human Rights Code and expressly includes job protections, where employees must be reinstated to their pre-leave positions (or comparable) once they return to work.

‍

The new entitlements, available to employees covered by the ESA, can be used across multiple periods of at least one weeks, allowing employees who are managing episodic diseases or are undergoing recurrent treatments (e.g., dialysis).

‍

There is no minimum length of service for employees to be entitled to this leave, but they will need to provide medical documentation confirming their inability to work due to medical reasons and specifying the dates when leave is required.

‍

Employers should monitor any developments regarding Bill 30, as workplace policies will need to be reviewed and updated the bill were to come into effect.

‍

You can track the status of Bill 30 here.

‍

Employers in British Columbia need to update their sick leave policies to remove the requirement for medical notes for short-term medical leave, following the new changes to the Employment Standards Act and Regulations introduced by Bill 11. Starting November 12, 2025, employers cannot ask for medical documentation for short-term health-related leave. Bill 11, introduced by the Ministry of Labour on April 15th, prevents employers from requesting doctor's notes for short-term health-related leave under these conditions:

‍

1. The absence is equal to or fewer than 5 consecutive days, and
2. The employee has not already taken more than one other short-term health-related leave of five or fewer consecutive days

‍

This applies to two qualifying absences per calendar year, with no carryover of unused leave. After a third short-term medical leave in the same year, employers can ask for medical documentation to confirm the leave is medically necessary, although a doctor's note isn't always required.

‍

Prior to the introduction of Bill 11, employers could request “reasonably sufficient proof” of injury or illness from employees, most commonly in the form of a medical note. This approach grew criticism from health professionals and policy makers as placing an unnecessary burden on employees and the health care system, especially for minor illnesses expected to resolve quickly.

‍

Employers may still request medical documentation to determine appropriate accommodations or to assess an employee’s fitness to return to work. It’s important to note that the new regulations apply only in the situations described above and do not apply to other statutory leaves—maternity, parental, critical illness or compassionate care leave.

‍

In the fast-paced world of business, contracts are the backbone of commercial relationships. They define rights, obligations, and remedies, and serve as the primary tool for risk allocation. Contracts are also a key driver of business value. Failure to appropriately document business relationships in well drafted contracts creates uncertainty as to a business’ rights and obligations vis-a-vis third parties; valuators are likely to take a cautious approach in light of such uncertainty and will likely undervalue a business in these circumstances. Yet, despite their importance, many businesses underestimate the complexity of contract drafting and negotiation. Engaging legal counsel is not merely a formality—it is a critical safeguard against costly disputes, unintended liabilities, operational disruptions, and value suppression. This article explores the key risks associated with poorly drafted contracts and highlights why legal advice is indispensable throughout the negotiation and drafting process.

‍

‍

1. Risk of Unintended Verbal Contract Formation

During negotiations, parties may exchange emails, draft term sheets, or engage in verbal discussions. Without clear documentation that negotiations are “subject to definitive agreement” or otherwise intended to be non-binding, courts may find that a binding contract was formed prematurely.

‍

Lawyers help manage this risk by drafting non-binding letters of intent, including disclaimers, and ensuring that all communications reflect the parties’ intent to be bound only upon execution of a final written agreement.

‍

‍

2. Risk of Inadequate Party Identification

Misidentifying parties—such as using trade names instead of legal entities—can render a contract unenforceable or create confusion over who is bound. This is especially critical when dealing with corporations, partnerships, joint ventures, or trusts, where authority to bind the entity may vary.

‍

Legal counsel ensures that parties are properly named, their legal status is clear, and signatories have appropriate authority. They can also advise on the production and execution of ancillary documentation that can be used as evidence of a party’s intent to be bound by a contract, such as corporate, partnership, or trust resolutions, as may be applicable.

‍

‍

3. Importance of Termination Provisions and Procedures

Termination clauses define how and when a contract can be ended, whether for cause (e.g., breach, insolvency, the occurrence of some event or condition) or for convenience. Poorly drafted termination rights can leave a party trapped in an unfavorable agreement or exposed to abrupt termination without recourse.

‍

Lawyers structure termination clauses to reflect the parties’ commercial realities, including notice periods, termination fees, post-termination obligations (e.g., return of confidential information, wind-down or sunset periods where immediate termination is impractical, etc.), and survival of key provisions like indemnity, limits of liability, and confidentiality.

‍

‍

4. Risk of Overbroad Indemnification Provisions

Indemnification clauses allocate risk by requiring one party to compensate the other for losses arising from specific events, such as breach, negligence, or third-party claims. However, when drafted too broadly—using language like “in any way arising out of” or “directly or indirectly related to”—these provisions can expose a party to liability for actions beyond its control, including those of the other party or third parties.

‍

Legal counsel ensures that indemnity obligations are appropriately scoped, limited to the indemnifying party’s own conduct, and exclude categories such as taxes or unrelated litigation. Lawyers also help define procedural safeguards, such as notice requirements and control over defense and settlement, which are vital to managing indemnity risk.

‍

‍

5. Risk of Inadequate or Inappropriate Limitations on Liability

Limitation of liability clauses cap the financial exposure of parties in the event of a breach or claim. Without careful drafting, these clauses may fail to expressly exclude or include consequential, incidental, or punitive damages, as would be appropriate for the circumstances, or may be rendered unenforceable due to ambiguity or inconsistency with other contract terms.

‍

Legal professionals tailor these clauses to the transaction, ensuring clarity, enforceability, and alignment with indemnity provisions. They also carve out exceptions for fraud, willful misconduct, or breaches of confidentiality, where unlimited liability may be appropriate.

‍

‍

6. Risks of Failing to Document Intellectual Property Ownership

In transactions involving Intellectual Property—such as software development, branding, or creative services—failure to document ownership can result in disputes over rights, royalties, or infringement claims. Under Canadian law, for example, copyright created by an employee may belong to the employer, but contractors generally retain ownership unless they are specifically assigned.

‍

Lawyers draft ownership and licensing clauses that clearly delineate rights, address pre-existing materials, and include necessary assignments and waivers.

‍

‍

7. Risk of Representations and Warranties Becoming Unintentionally Binding

In the absence of an “entire agreement” clause, pre-contractual statements—such as sales pitches, marketing documents, verbal assurances, or informal promises, which are not specifically included in the contract—may be deemed part of the contract. This can lead to disputes over alleged misrepresentations or attempted reliance on and enforcement of terms that were not intended to be legally binding.

‍

Properly drafted entire agreement clauses prevent this by stating that the written contract supersedes all prior communications. Legal counsel ensures this clause is robust and includes a “no modification” provision, requiring written amendments signed by both parties.

‍

‍

8. Missing or Vague Boilerplate Provisions

Often overlooked, “boilerplate” or “general” provisions—such as notice requirements, assignment rights and restrictions, governing law and forum, and dispute resolution—play a crucial role in contract enforcement. Their absence or ambiguity can lead to confusion as to the practical application of the contract or to forum shopping (the practice of enforcing a contract in a jurisdiction with laws favourable to the complainant), or result in obligations becoming unexpectedly unenforceable.

‍

For example, failing to specify acceptable notice methods (e.g., excluding email due to reliability concerns, or contemplating the outcome if mail is sent during a strike or other labour shortage) can lead to questions as to whether critical communications were delivered properly, which could be the determining factor in whether a party is permitted to exercise a contractual right or is barred from doing so. Similarly, omitting a governing law clause may result in unpredictable legal outcomes where the laws of different jurisdictions treat a particular matter differently, and failing to confirm the parties’ rights and obligations with respect to assignment of their interest in the contract can result in unintended restriction on assignment or unwanted assignment of contractual rights to third parties. Legal counsel ensures these provisions are comprehensive, consistent, and tailored to the parties’ needs.

‍

‍

9. Additional Considerations

The above is not a comprehensive list of issues that should be addressed by a professional when contracts are being drafted or negotiated. The circumstances specific to each commercial matter will give rise to practical and legal considerations unique to the subject transaction. A commercial lawyer can identify such considerations and provide guidance to ensure the contract is appropriately tailored so that key issues are addressed in a coherent, unambiguous, and legally binding manner.

‍

‍

Conclusion

Contracts are not just legal documents—they are strategic tools that shape business relationships, allocate risk, and preserve value. The risks of proceeding without legal advice are significant: enforcement of unintended legal obligations, exposure to unforeseen liabilities, unenforceable terms, and costly litigation. By involving legal counsel early in the negotiation and drafting process, businesses can ensure that their contracts are clear, enforceable, and aligned with their commercial objectives.

‍

In short, legal advice is not a luxury—it is a necessity.

‍

The above article is meant for informational purposes only; it is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Readers should seek legal advice specific to their circumstances prior to executing a business contract or agreement.

‍

BC is moving toward greater transparency about who owns companies. Each private company in BC is required to maintain a transparency register which identifies people who have significant control over a company, which is kept internally and available for viewing by government officials.

‍

Starting in late 2025, private companies in B.C. will be required to file their transparency register information directly with the Business Registry, not just keep it internally. This is intended to prevent hidden ownership and increase public accountability. Under the new rules, some of this information will become public, including individuals’ full legal names, year of birth, and countries of citizenship. Companies will need to update changes within 15 days, instead of the current 30-day window.

‍

These rules will apply to all private companies in B.C. and will require disclosure of anyone who owns or controls 25% or more of shares or voting rights, or has the power to appoint or remove directors.

‍

Non-compliance comes with serious consequences. Fines may reach $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for companies if false or misleading information is filed, plus additional penalties for failing to file at all.

‍

Now is the time for businesses to review ownership structures, update records, and get organized before filing becomes mandatory.

Big changes are coming for B.C.’s mortgage industry.

‍

The new Mortgage Services Act (MSA) officially takes effect October 13, 2026, with several provisions already in force. This major overhaul replaces the decades-old Mortgage Brokers Act, bringing tougher licensing rules, stronger oversight, and higher penalties, all of which are aimed at modernizing the sector and addressing professional recommendations on money laundering.

‍

The BC Financial Services Authority (BCFSA) will now have expanded powers to set rules, enforce compliance, and investigate misconduct through a new Superintendent of Mortgage Services. The MSA introduces four new licence classes (brokerage, principal broker, broker, and lender), expands what qualifies as “mortgage services,” and sets much higher standards for education, suitability, and recordkeeping.

‍

Private lenders will require their own licenses, and mortgage brokers will be able to incorporate their own Professional Mortgage Corporations for tax planning purposes, similar to what realtors are already able to do.

‍

Penalties have also skyrocketed - up to $500,000 for disciplinary actions and $2.5 million for offences.

‍

With a 15-month transition period already underway, every mortgage professional in B.C. needs to prepare for the shift to this new regulatory regime.

Remote working arrangements have been around long before the COVID-19 pandemic, albeit uncommon, but employers were generally careful in approving these arrangements for its employees. When the pandemic suddenly shut the world down in 2020, businesses were understandably overwhelmed with adapting to new challenges, and many did not implement clear policies on remote work. As time went on, some employees viewed remote work as a right while their employers believed they retained the right to recall at any time.  What happens when there’s disagreement?

‍

In Byrd v. Welcome Home Children’s Residence Inc. (“Byrd”), the employee, Ms. Byrd, moved to Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic due to her husband, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, given a posting there. Ms. Byrd’s employer, which operated a care home in Ontario, initially permitted a remote-working arrangement from Europe but later changed its mind and mandated a return to the office. Ms. Byrd refused, and her employer provided her with an ultimatum: return to the office or resign. The Ontario court found that the employer’s conduct was a constructive dismissal of Ms. Byrd’s employment and awarded her 6.5 months’ pay in lieu of notice of termination.

‍

The Byrd decision had a unique set of circumstances and does not mean that employers cannot recall its remote-working employees to the office. At the trial, neither party could produce any documentation regarding the terms of the remote-working arrangement and both parties ostensibly had a different understanding of what was agreed to. Ms. Byrd believed she was permitted to work remotely for the entire duration of her husband’s posting. The employer believed it had retained a right to recall Ms. Byrd to the office at any time.  

‍

Finding in Ms. Byrd’s favour, the court considered that there was no credible evidence that the employer ever communicated a right to recall until approximately 20 months after Ms. Byrd relocated to Europe. In these circumstances, the court found that remote work from Europe had become a fundamental term of Ms. Byrd’s employment and her employer’s attempt to recall her to the office was a breach of that term.

‍

The Byrd decision can be contrasted with the pre-pandemic decision of Staley v Squirrel Systems of Canada Ltd (“Staley”). In Staley, a Burnaby-based employer permitted its employee, Mr. Staley, to work remotely from Montreal but promptly communicated to him, in writing, that the arrangement was only approved on a temporary basis. Within three months of his Mr. Staley’s relocation, the employer presented him with a written employment contract explicitly providing that he could be recalled to the office at any time. Mr. Staley rejected the written contract and was subsequently recalled to work at the Burnaby office. When Mr. Staley refused to return, the employer terminated his employment for just cause.

‍

Considering the documentary evidence available, the trial judge ultimately concluded that Mr. Staley’s refusal to return was just cause for termination. This finding was upheld by the BC Court of Appeal.

‍

The contrasting decisions in Byrd and Staley are a good reminder for employers of the importance of having clear workplace policies and reducing verbal agreements to writing. Had the employer in the Byrd case done this and set clear expectations, the employee may not have filed a lawsuit at all, or at the very least, the litigation would have had a much different outcome.

‍

Every two years, those interested in workplace health and safety attend the Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety Forum.  The 2025 Forum, like those before it, provided attendees with an opportunity to learn and share knowledge and experience around current and emerging health and safety issues.

‍

Attendees in 2025 listened to a variety of thought leaders and subject experts from government, labour and workplaces, including:

‍

• Dr. Aviroop (Avi) Biswas: Scientist at the Institute for Work and Health on a recent study on the daily movement patterns of Canadian workers and which of these are associated with optimal heart health.
• Dr. Sarah Henderson: Scientific Director of Environmental Health Services at the BC Centre for Disease Control on climate change and considerations and implications for occupational health.
• Xabier Irastorza: Senior Research Project Manager at the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work on insights from the latest European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER).
• Travis Woodworth: Health and Safety Planner at Glooscap Health and Safety on Indigenous perspectives on health and safety for workplaces and communities.

‍

The highlight was the end of forum presentation by Susan Aglukark, O.C., LL.B, award-winning Inuk singer-songwriter.  Her moving speech told the stories of her people, the Inuit of Arctic Canada, and themes of hope, spirit and encouragement accompanied by musical arrangements blended with the Inuktitut and English languages.

‍

A common theme amongst speakers was looking back to learn and go forward. Key takeaways were:

-Mindset is everything so hire with mindset as a skill set.  Work equals about 10,000 days of an individual’s life so the focus needs to be on the needs of the people in our workplaces. Mindset for workplaces need to include:

• Leadership, which in 21st century includes the ability to course correct when something new does not produce the expected results.
• Teamwork and collaborative work.
• Resilience and underscoring that asking for help at inflection points gets the organization through the hard parts of change.

-Employers should strive to optimize employee performance even when stress and mental health issues exist.  Stress and mental health includes a range of circumstances from a divorce to a family member being ill or a recent death in the family, to recent mental health diagnoses like ADHD or General Anxiety Disorder. Tools exist to facilitate employer – employee conversations to support staying at work or returning to work.

‍

-Cultural safety in the workplace is possible and its presence builds retention, confidence and long-term workplace success.  An Indigenous informed workforce means:

• Progress over perfection.
• Relationships over rules.
• Front line – first always.

‍

Family caregiving impacts talent recruitment so development of policies and practices to support flexible workplaces will support your workplace in the long-run.  New tools to help worker-carers are available.

‍

The world’s changing environment is impacting our workplaces so climate/the environment should be included in risk assessments.  Tools like the Extreme Heat Preparedness Guide should be considered when assessing the health and safety of activities at your workplace.

‍

If you would like to learn more how to create a health and safety conscious workplace, and more about the 2025 CHOHS Forum, please contact Fiona H. McFarlane.  Fiona works with employers to create policies that ensure compliance with human rights and health and safety legislation, while keeping up to date on the latest trends in health and safety.

‍

‍

‍

‍

In a recent BC Supreme Court decision, a long-term employee’s reasonable notice period was significantly reduced because she filed a wrongful dismissal action during the working notice period. Her lawsuit effectively repudiated the employment relationship, ending the employer’s obligations toward her under the employment contract.

‍

Background

Ms. Adrain worked for Agricom - a trader and exporter of agricultural commodities – in an office administrator role alongside its founder, Mr. Thorpe, for 30 years. On April 8, 2025, Mr. Thorpe advised Ms. Adrain that he was planning to wind down the company and offered that Ms. Adrain could either take over the business or eventually cease employment.

‍

On April 14, 2025, Ms. Adrain had a lawyer send a letter on her behalf to Agricom stating that she would continue to work until the company wound down but demanded $200,000.00 in severance payment to reflect 24 months reasonable notice. In response, on April 29, 2025, Agricom provided Ms. Adrain with 13 months working notice of termination. Ms. Adrain responded through her lawyer that 13 months notice was insufficient. After Agricom did not respond to this letter, Ms. Adrain filed a wrongful dismissal action on May 14, 2025. Agricom filed its response to the action on June 17, 2025.

‍

Parties Positions

Ms. Adrain argued that she was wrongfully dismissed by Agricom, as 13 months working notice was insufficient, and there was no just cause to terminate her. She argued that 24 months was reasonable notice based on her age, length of service, position and skill set and as such, she was entitled to her salary, bonuses, and cell phone expenses for the 24-month period.

‍

Agricom argued that Ms. Adrain’s demand letters and subsequent lawsuit constituted just cause for her termination. In the alternative, Agricom argued that Ms. Adrain repudiated her employment contract by filing the lawsuit, and that they accepted this repudiation on June 17, 2025, by filing their response. As such, Ms. Adrain would be entitled to damages reflecting reasonable notice of termination, minus pay for the months she would have worked if she hadn’t repudiated her employment contract.

‍

Issues

‍

1. Did the demand letters and lawsuit commenced by Ms. Adrain constitute just cause for her dismissal?
2. Did Ms. Adrain repudiate her employment contract by commencing the lawsuit?
3. How should Ms. Adrain’s reasonable notice period be calculated?

‍

The demand letters and lawsuit did not constitute just cause for dismissal

The court acknowledged that there are times when an employee’s legal action against their employer will render the employment relationship incompatible, thus constituting just cause for dismissal. However, the determination depends on the circumstances of each case: para. 48. In Ms. Adrain’s case, the demand letters and lawsuit did not amount to just cause for dismissal. The court considered that it was neither shocking nor unreasonable for Ms. Adrain to communicate with Agricom through her lawyer. Mr. Thorpe had just given her some important decisions to make regarding her future with the company. The letters, while direct, were not overly aggressive, but rather an invitation to negotiate: para. 54. The court also considered Ms. Adrain’s many years of positive contribution to the company, the power imbalance between her and Mr. Thorpe as her boss, and the ambiguous nature of Mr. Thorpe’s original explanation of how the company was going to be wound down. Further, Ms. Adrain worked from home, and she didn’t often have the opportunity to communicate with Mr. Thorpe in person.

‍

Similarly, the lawsuit itself was not scandalous or inflammatory, and was only commenced after Agricom failed to respond to Ms. Adrain’s final letter. The lawsuit did not render the employment relationship incompatible, as it was in very early stages. Ms. Adrain remained willing to work at Agricom while the company wound down and would not have been in close quarters with Mr. Thorpe as she worked from home: paras. 55-56.

‍

Ms. Adrain repudiated her employment contract when she filed the lawsuit

Notwithstanding the above, the court still found that Ms. Adrain repudiated her employment contract by commencing the wrongful dismissal action during her working notice. The repudiation was accepted by Agricom on June 17, 2025, when it filed the response to the action: para. 64.

‍

Ms. Adrain’s reasonable notice period was significantly reduced to reflect her repudiation of the employment contract

Both parties and the court agreed that 24 months was a reasonable notice period and that the 13 months notice provided by Agricom was insufficient. However, the court held that Ms. Adrain’s award should be adjusted to reflect her repudiation of the employment contract, as Agricom was not obligated to compensate her once she had ended the employment relationship. Ms. Adrain repudiated the employment contract 1.5 months into the 13 months of working notice Agricom had given her. As such, the court deducted the remaining 11.5 months of working notice that Ms. Adrain would have worked through, had she not repudiated her employment, leaving her entitlements at only 12.5 months reasonable notice (24 months minus 11.5 months).

‍

The trial of this matter occurred only 4 months after Ms. Adrain was given formal working notice of the termination of her employment. At the time of trial, Ms. Adrain had not yet secured alternate employment. However, the court determined that Ms. Adrain’s reasonable notice period should be deducted by an additional month, on the basis that it was likely Ms. Adrain might find alternative employment within the notice period.

‍

Ms. Adrain’s notice period was further reduced, as Agricom had continued to pay her for a period of 4.5 months after termination. It is also noteworthy that Ms. Adrain was not entitled to damages in respect of bonuses owed by Agricom throughout the notice period. This was because whether she received a bonus each year was entirely up to the discretion of Agricom. The bonuses did not make up an integral part of her compensation, as they were not issued every year: para. 88.

‍

After all the deductions, Ms. Adrain’s reasonable notice period was 7 months with an award of $47,254.70 reflecting her pay during that period.

‍

Takeaways

If an employee commences formal legal negotiations or a lawsuit against their employer, these actions will not always constitute just cause for dismissal. It will depend on whether the legal actions render the employment relationship incompatible in the circumstances.

‍

However, if an employee commences a wrongful dismissal action against their employer during their working notice, the employee will generally be considered to have repudiated the employment contract, effectively ending the employment relationship and ending any obligation on the employer to pay them further. This case serves as a caution to employees who have been given working notice, and are considering legal action, as commencing proceedings may significantly reduce any potential award granted by the court.

‍

However, employers should also be aware that employees who repudiate the employment relationship during working notice may still be entitled to damages if the working notice period provided was insufficient.

‍

As the prevalence of workplace incidents and investigations continues to gain momentum, questions abound regarding process come to us from interested parties including Complainants, Respondents and Employers investigating.  In the recent 2024 case of Marentette v. Canada (Attorney General), the Federal Court of Canada does a deep dive in its legal analysis of the applicable legislation and a thorough history of the case law in this area, with helpful takeaways, which we summarize below.

‍

In this case, a Canada border agent, Chris Marentette, initiated a workplace complaint by “notice of occurrence” under the federal regulations regarding a pattern of harassing behaviors he was alleged to have been experiencing at work; an investigation was initiated, and he was interviewed.  The investigator then interviewed the Respondents, and the witnesses. The investigator then compiled a report that found Mr. Marentette’s notice of occurrence could not be substantiated based on the evidence and on the balance of probabilities, which is the applicable legal standard of proof in these investigations.  

‍

On judicial review of the matter, the main issue was the question surrounding procedural fairness (or lack thereof).  Because Mr. Marentette was never provided the Respondents’ evidence or the witnesses’ evidence, he was not afforded the reasonable chance to rebut, refute, provide context, deny or otherwise speak to their evidence before the final report was drafted, then adopted by his employer.  Justice Brown found that the investigation was flawed for these reasons, and remanded the notice of occurrence for re-determination by a new investigator.  

‍

In support of the view that procedural fairness for Mr. Marentette had been wrongly denied in this instance, the court agreed with his submissions that workplace harassment and violence investigations are to be afforded a high level of procedural fairness; the impact on individuals involved affects them personally, professionally, and often impacts the working experience and environment.  

‍

Key takeaways:

• “right to respond” is of paramount importance for both the Complainant and the Respondent(s): each affected party is to be given a meaningful opportunity to respond to any evidence gathered during the course of investigation
• Investigation procedure is to be transparent and conducted in a timely manner
• Investigation procedures must reflect the regulatory regime(s) in place, with policy requirements being duly met
• Parties (not witnesses) are to be kept up-to-date as the investigation unfolds

‍

For further information, see case in full: Marentette v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 676 (CanLII); and Federal Regulation, Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations, SOR/2020-130, made pursuant to subsections 125(3) and 157(1) of the Canada Labour Code, (RSC 1985, c. L-2).

‍