Terry Blaine Gustafson v. Input Capital Corp.

(Saskatchewan) (Civil) (By Leave)


Contracts - Contracts — Unconscionability — Whether the agreements were unconscionable — How should the courts approach an assessment of the particular vulnerability of the weaker party under the unconscionability analysis — What is the correct approach of an appellate court when disposing of a case on remand from this Court?



Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

A contractual relationship between Input Capital Corp. (“ICC”) and Mr. Gustafson and related farming corporations (“Gustafson Farms”) spanned ten different contracts entered by the parties at various times. Gustafson Farms defaulted on its delivery obligations and ICC commenced two actions against it, seeking inter alia foreclosure under the security agreements or judicial sale of mortgaged lands. The trial judge determined that the agreements were unconscionable, and set them aside. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada ordered that the Court of Appeal’s decision be remanded to the Court of Appeal to be reconsidered in light of its decision in Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16. The Court of Appeal affirmed its decision dated August 16, 2019.