A Canadian Lawyer’s Perspective on the Gordie Howe Bridge Agreement

The news has been awash of late with the US President Donald Trump blocking the opening of the Gordie Howe Bridge because in his view it was a “bad deal” despite the fact that Canada paid for the bridge.

Then there was finally an agreement between the Canadian and US Government that allowed the bridge to finally open. Donald Trump touted the deal as great for America. Mark Carney initially told the press that the word “net” was doing the heavy lifting in the agreement although he later acknowledged the new agreement would see some additional money go to the US. The Canadian Conservatives tried to paint the deal as a bad deal and suggested Mark Carney wasn’t being straight about its terms.

No one in the press seems to be able to sort out exactly what the deal means.

We decided to look at the actual legal agreements posted by the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority (the “WDBA”) on their website. The WDBA is the organization created to oversee the operation of the Gordie Howe Bridge pursuant to the original agreements related to the bridge between Canada and the State of Michigan.

Let’s get into it.

First, the original agreement dealing with how to manage the bridge and share revenue and expenses was an agreement between Canada and Michigan from June of 2012 entitled “Crossing Agreement”.

The beginning of this agreement contains a number of defined terms, as is common in longer commercial agreements of any kind. These defined terms set the legal meaning of whenever the word or phrase is used in the agreement going forward.

One important definitional term is “Unrecouped Canadian Contributions” which in plain speak means all of the costs of the bridge paid for by Canada that have not yet been paid back yet either from the aggregate revenue of the bridge (ie. profit or revenue after expense) or the Michigan or US government.

Another defined term is “Imputed Cost of Unrecouped Canadian Contributions”.  This is defined as the amount of Unrecouped Canadian Contributions at each calendar year end plus interest at the rate of the Government of Canada benchmark long term bond yield effective on the last day of the prior calendar year plus 100 basis points, compounded annually.

To give some meaning to the interest rate amount, the current Canada long term bond yield rate as of writing this blog is 3.5%. If we add 100 basis points that is an extra 1% for a total rate of 4.5%. The estimated costs Canada spent on the bridge are $6.4 billion dollars. 4.5% of $6.4 billion is $288 million dollars in interest per year. It is also important to note that this amount compounds annually. So if no money was paid down on the $6.4 billion, it would balloon to $6.68 billion the next year, and then 4.5% interest on that would be $300,960,000.00 the next calendar year, assuming bond yield remained the same.

The agreement goes on to set out that basically Canada’s cost are paid back by revenue from the tolls on the bridge, The way the costs for the different parts of the bridge is defined is that it covers both the initial investment costs of Canada into the various parts of the bridge plus the operating costs of the bridge.

Finally, a schedule to the agreement indicates that once all of Canada’s costs (plus the interest) are paid back, then Michigan gets half the revenue as long as it agrees to be responsible for half of ongoing bridge costs moving forward. Alternatively, Michigan has the right to pay half of the bridge costs currently outstanding at time it pays them to “own” half of the bridge quicker and get its half of the revenue.

Next, we have the Trump/ Carney agreement which is also posted on the WDBA website and called “the proposed agreement in principle”. Like many agreements that involve Trump, the agreement is not something any lawyer would recognize as a fully fleshed out legal agreement but instead is a one page document which seems to set out the general principles of an agreement with the details to be fleshed out later.

This one pager specifically refers to the “Crossing Agreement” and says nothing in the agreement in principle will amend, supersede, or modify the Crossing Agreement. This means everything in the Crossing Agreement continues to apply.

Now, we get to the critical term on payment that has created all of the confusion and which no-one seems to be able to understand. This clause is worded as follows:

                  “Canada will provide annual economic participation payments, outside the 2012 Canada–Michigan Crossing Agreement equal to fifty percent (50%) of net bridge and crossing related revenues for the first fifteen (15) fiscal years of bridge operations. Net bridge and crossing related revenues is all revenues collected with respect to the bridge, less all incurred operating costs of the bridge. Such payments shall be made to a United States-Canada Economic Development Fund, established and solely controlled by the Government of the United States.

Breaking this wording down, we can translate as follows:

• There will be a payment from Canada outside the terms of the Crossing Agreement

• It will be equal to 50% of “net” bridge and crossing related revenues for the first 15 years of bridge operations.

• Net bridge revenues is defined as all revenues collected less all incurred operating costs of the bridge.

• The payments will go to an economic fund specifically for developing economic growth of Canada and the US.

This wording leaves massive confusion for a number of reasons:

• The original Crossing Agreement is still in effect and not altered by the new agreement in principle.

• Under the original Crossing Agreement there is no real breakdown between operating costs and the original costs Canada incurred in building the bridge and related structures, they are all designated under blanket costs definitional terms that include both operational costs and original costs of building different parts of the bridge structure.

• The payments back to Canada and the interest are also defined as imputed costs in the original Crossing Agreement.

At the end of the day, the question will come down to  the definition of “operational costs” under the new agreement in principle. Does it mean the same as in the Crossing Agreement?  This doesn’t seem likely, otherwise why differentiate operational costs if they are lumped together with costs of building the bridge in the original agreement. Is the cost of paying the interest to Canada considered an operational cost? The agreement in principle doesn’t say. Under generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) interest is not considered an operating cost, however this term could have a different meaning under the agreement in principle.

The agreement in principle fails to define the key terms needed to properly understand what this deal means in terms of what is included in operational costs deducted from revenue that the US will participate in for 15 years.

One interesting thing we have noted that no-one is talking about, however, is that even if interest isn’t  an operating cost to be deducted before the first 15 year 50% split it is still both accruing and compounding over that 15 year period if it is not being paid (or at least being paid down at a 50% lesser rate). Using the figures discussed above, 15 years of interest on the bridge even without compounding the interest is 4.32 billion dollars. 50% of that is 2.16 billion dollars.  Put another way, is it really that great a deal to get paid some additional money right away that has to be invested into an expense (economic development) if you are going to end up paying far more interest on a compounding basis over the long term?  It seems very possible the answer is no, although that may depend on what the return on the economic development fund actually is in reference to the compounding interest paid. Perhaps even in the best case scenario for the US under this deal they are simply funding immediate financial benefit with greater debt, a criticism increasingly levelled at the US in reference to the US national debt, which currently totals just shy of 40 trillion dollars.

The new US Canada agreement in principle is also just that, an agreement to broad strokes with the details to come. Given the erratic nature of the US administration, it is entirely possible that the entire agreement falls apart in the negotiation of the details, especially considering there seems to be different interpretations of the details being held by the Canadian and US government. Also, given this US administration has already broken the CUSMA agreement with Canada multiple times, how can Canada trust that the US will honour any agreement it enters into with Canada anyway? Given that the bridge is now open, it is hard to guess what effect the deal unravelling would have. Would the US try and close the bridge again once it is already open? This would seem to be a politically bad move, given the State of Michigan and its business community (with the exception of the owner of the Ambassador Bridge) seem to wholeheartedly support the bridge and its economic benefits. That said, the current US administration doesn’t seem to care about the political costs of its bad decisions making to date.

The other consideration is the economic benefit of the bridge opening versus remaining closed. The exact costs of this don’t seem to be possible to calculate due to too many unknown variables but all sources seem to agree that the benefits are substantial, given the massive amount of trade flowing between Detroit and Windsor.

In conclusion, it doesn’t seem possible to precisely tell what the new agreement with Canada and the US on the Gordie Howe Bridge is, given the unprecise and undefined nature of the “Agreement in Principle”. What is certain is that an important piece of international infrastructure is now open, but what should have been a symbol of unity between too neighbouring nations has now become a symbol for Canada of the racketeering gangster style foreign policy being deployed against it by its now hostile southern neighbours.

If you have questions about legal agreements please contact one of our lawyers to see how we can help you, or call us for more information: 604.380.3517

The Maple Ridge News has featured some exciting updates for our law firm! 

We’re pleased to offer our new and existing clients an expanded suite of legal services, including Solicitor services such as Wills and Estates, Business Law Services, Incorporations, Buying and Selling Businesses, Powers of Attorney, Estate Planning, Probate, Representation Agreements, and more!

Contact one of our lawyers to see how we can help you, or call us for more information: 604.380.3517

In most cases, at the end of an employee’s employment the employer is required to give the employee “reasonable notice” or payment in lieu of “reasonable notice” under the common law (See here the link to our blog on common law notice Common Law Notice in British Columbia – Carter Litigation).

There are three main exceptions to that rule. These are:

1. The employee quits and voluntarily leaves their employment;
2. There is a written employment contract that limits the amount of notice that must be given to the employee; or
3. The employer has just cause to terminate the employee.

Just cause has a specific legal definition, it is not just any reason the employer thinks it is reasonable to terminate an employee for. Also, the employer has the burden to prove allegations of just cause at trial, where usually the burden of proof is on the person making a legal claim.

There are two main types of just cause:

The first type of just cause is where an employee commits one act of misconduct that is so contradictory to the employment relationship that the employment cannot continue. The classic example of this type of just cause would be where an employee is caught on camera stealing money from the till. There is just no way an employer could continue on working with an employee if they cannot trust their employee not to steal from them.

The second type of just cause involves lesser acts of employee misconduct, such as insubordination or chronic lateness or absenteeism. With these lesser types of misconduct, the law requires the employer to sit down with the employee, tell them clearly what they are doing wrong, tell them clearly what the behavioural expectations are or what the employee can do to improve behaviour, and make it clear that if the behaviour continues or if the  issue does not improve that the employee could lose their job. A lawyer’s preference would be that this process would occur in writing and occur over several meetings with progressive discipline before the employee is actually terminated. Only if these steps are carried out will the employer have any sort of chance of proving just cause for this sort of more minor misconduct.

Just cause cases are extremely difficult for employer’s to win, so it is generally best to consult with a lawyer first before terminating an employee, especially if the employer is considering relying on just cause.

If you have questions about Employment Law, please contact one of our lawyers to see how we can help you.

Call for more information: 604.380.3517

On May 15, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada released judgment in the case Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia where the court recognized and outlined a new “tort” or civil cause of action called “intimate partner violence”.

The court described this new tort of intimate partner violence as follows:

“Best understood, it is not confined to conduct that inflicts physical or psychological injury, but includes all abusive conduct by which one intimate partner coerces and controls the other, thus depriving them of their autonomy.

This includes egregious acts of physical and psychological violence, as well as tactics of isolation, manipulation, humiliation, surveillance, economic abuse, sexual coercion, and intimidation that can control and entrap intimate partners. In the instant case, it is recognized that the husband’s liability rests on the new tort of intimate partner violence.”

The Supreme Court of Canada differentiated this new tort from the existing torts of assault and battery, which would apply to physical violence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, which would apply to psychological and emotional violence so outrageous that it causes a recognizable mental illness. Instead, the tort of intimate partner violence focused on coercive actions that cause a loss of autonomy for the intimate partner.

The court had this to say about the basis of compensation payable for this new tort:

“The harm experienced by the wife from coercive control, including that associated with her dignity, autonomy, and equality should fall fully under general compensatory damages for the tortious conduct of intimate partner violence.”

From this it appears that the compensation will be similar to non-pecuniary damages in injury claims, except instead of focusing on the effect of injuries on a person’s life, the court will focus on the effect on a person’s dignity, autonomy, and equality.

The court explicitly took the time to recognize in the judgment that intimate partner violence is being predominantly perpetrated by men against women.

This decision, in our view, is an important recognition by our highest court of the serious issue of intimate partner violence that exists in our society but that does not necessarily extend to extreme acts of physical or psychological violence covered by other torts.

The full text of the decision can be located here: Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia – SCC Cases

Make sure to contact one of our experienced lawyers at Carter Litigation if you think you may have been the victim of intimate partner violence to learn whether this new tort may apply to your situation.

Call us for more information: 604.380.3517

The death of a loved one is one of the most traumatic experiences that anyone can go through.

Not only are you dealing with the grief and shock and emotions of your loved one dying but now someone has to deal with a mountain of administrative and legal tasks, such as notifying financial institutions and government authorities, dealing with wills and assets, and obtaining a death certificate.

The Government of Canada has a helpful checklist of some of the many different tasks someone dealing with a loved one’s death will have to deal with. We attach a link to the checklist here: After a Death Checklist

At Carter Litigation, we can assist with both understanding and dealing with many of the legal and administrative tasks, such as probating the estate, assisting with notifying various parties, and providing advice as to how to navigate any difficulties you might encounter on the way.

Contact one of our lawyers to see how we can help you.

Call for more information: 604.380.3517

When terminating an employee without just cause in most cases an employer is required to give that employee reasonable notice or pay in lieu of reasonable notice.

For a discussion of reasonable notice, follow the link to our blog post on common law notice here: Common Law Notice in British Columbia – Carter Litigation

The option to provide reasonable notice or pay in lieu of reasonable notice is entirely the choice of the employer.

If the employer chooses to give reasonable notice rather than paying the employee an amount equivalent to that, this is referred to as “working notice”. Paying out an amount equivalent to the notice period on termination is commonly referred to as “severance pay”.

There are pros and cons to the employer of each of the approaches.

One advantage to the employer of giving working notice is that the employer actually gets something of value in return for the money the employee is paid over the working notice period, in that the employee continues to provide their labour over that period of time.

Another advantage is that if the employee finds another job over the working notice period and quits to start that job, then the employer is not required to provide any more notice or pay in lieu of notice as the employee has voluntarily left their employment.

The downside to working notice is that most employees are not going to go the “extra mile” in terms of their work ethic if they know their job is coming to an end. Also, in extreme circumstances, a disgruntled employee who still has access to the employer’s computer systems, financial systems, or customer lists, as a few examples, could do considerable damage to a business if they chose to sabotage it. In a less extreme example, an employee on working notice could bring down the morale of other employees.

The main advantage of paying out notice right away is that it avoids all the potential problems just mentioned as the employment relationship immediately comes to an end and the employee no longer has access in any way to the employer’s business.

The primary downside to paying severance is that it can be a significant financial liability for the company, particularly in the case of long term employees.

Because of the pros and cons discussed above, in most cases immediate termination and paying severance pay make the most sense for the employer.

However, in cases where a company has a very long term employee making a good wage where the amount of notice required to pay out might be quite high, then  it might make sense to consider using working notice, especially if things are ending with that employee on good terms and the employee is one whose character can be trusted not to sabotage the business.

The requirements for providing working notice are legally specific and the notice must be given in wrting. Also, if an employee stays on and works even one day after the working notice period is up that will legally reset the employment and notice will have to be given again and will start again (basically the clock is reset). For these reasons, we recommend you consult with a lawyer like Robert Carter before attempting to provide working notice as a strategy if you are an employer.    

Call us for more information: 604.380.3517

Just the other day a number of children were injured in an electrical incident at the Cultus Lake Water Slides. In some online commentary about whether the children could sue Cultus Lake Water Slides someone raised the issue that everyone who attends the waterslides has to have their parent agree to a waiver of liability.

This raises the question as to whether a parent can contractually waive liability on behalf of their child.

Generally speaking, due to the principle of freedom of contract, an adult can sign a waiver as a part of a contract to partake in a recreational or sporting activity in British Columbia and the courts will uphold the waiver as long as it is clearly worded and the fact the person is signing something that might affect their legal rights is properly brought to the person’s attention in the document.

When it comes to children’s activities such a My Gym, waterslides, trampoline parks, sports teams etc. parents are routinely asked to sign or agree online to waivers of liability on behalf of their children that purport to waive away all rights of the child to bring a personal injury claim against the business.

This very issue came up in the case of Wong v. Lok’s Martial Arts Centre Inc., 2009 BCSC 1385. In this case, a 12 year old boy was injured in a sparring match at a Hapkido martial arts school. The mother has a signed a membership form on behalf of the child that included wording that released the school for liability for injuries of any students while attending the school. The martial arts school argued that this document signed by the mother on behalf of the boy was binding on the boy and so therefore the case should be dismissed outright.

The court disagreed. After a careful review of the Infants Act [RSBC 1996] C. 223, which governs the ability of parents to enter into contracts on behalf of their children, the court said that this act “does not permit a parent or guardian to bind an infant to an agreement waiving the infant’s right to bring an action in damages in tort”.

This means it is impossible for a parent (or any other adult) to waive the rights of any child under 19 years old to make an injury claim for the negligence of others. It should also be noted that this same act also strictly curtails the ability of a minor to enter into contractual relations themselves, so it would also be unenforceable to have the minor sign the contract instead of the parent.

The take away is that parents can sign away on the liability waiver forms for their kid’s activities, as the waivers are not worth the paper they are written on when it comes to waiving liability on behalf of a minor.

If you have questions, or if your child has been injured in an accident, seek help from a qualified personal injury lawyer like Robert Carter as soon as possible.     

Call us for more information: 604.380.3517

We are pleased to offer expanded Solicitor services at Carter Litigation for Maple Ridge, the Fraser Valley, and surrounding areas.

Call us for more information: 604.380.3517 or send us an email: info@carterlitigation.com

Under the Builder’s Lien Act of BC, anyone who provides labour and materials for construction of an “improvement” (i.e. A building or other construction project) on land is entitled to place a lien against the land if they are not paid.

This is a powerful tool that can help an unpaid contractor or subcontractor get paid, as it prevents the owner of the land from selling or refinancing the land without dealing with the lien. In addition, construction financing will not advance any more draws to an owner or developer until a lien is dealt with.

However, there are time limits that must be strictly followed in order to have the right to file and enforce a builder’s lien.

The time limit is 45 days from the earlier of a variety of events, these events being:

1. Issuance of a certificate of completion with respect to a contract or subcontract. The certificate of completion is a piece of paper in a specified format that notifies other persons that the work under the contract or subcontract is completed. It must be sent to certain individuals and also has to be posted on the job site in a conspicuous place.

2. Completion of the head contract or of the improvement if no head contractor is engaged. This means that if there is a general contractor for a project hired by the owner then 45 days from the completion of that contract. If there is no general contractor, then it is 45 days from the completion of the overall construction project. “Completion” is defined under the Builder’s Lien Act as being 97% of the work is done, or even slightly more than that depending on the overall value of the contract. This trigger is very important to keep in mind because on a larger construction project, which trade is involved will greatly change this trigger. For instance, the formwork contractor pouring the foundations may have literally years before the head contract comes to completion. However, the painting contractor may have very little time or the project could even be completed under the definition of the act before they are even done working.

3. Abandonment of the head contact or improvement if no head contract. While there is no specific definition of abandonment under the Builder’ s Lien Act, a good example would be where the contractor is not getting paid by the owner and says “I am out of here because I haven’t been paid” and pulls all of their forces of off the project with no intention to return. The head contract or project is deemed to be abandoned under the Builder’s Lien Act if no work is done for 30 days.

4. Termination of the head contract. “Termination” is also not defined under the Builder’s Lien Act and generally is determined by looking at the terms of the contract. Usually, the owner would issue written notice of termination setting out the reasons why.

5. If the construction project is a strata, then 45 days from when the strata lot is sold to a purchaser. This trigger is designed to protect new strata purchasers from being on the hook related to liens incurred by the developer, after a set amount of time.

As the above shows, the exact 45 day cut off date can be tricky to determine depending on the facts of the situation, so generally it is advisable to contact an experienced Construction Law lawyer like Robert Carter as soon as possible if you think you may want to file a lien claim, so the time limit is not missed.

You should also contact a lawyer even if you think a lien time limit has been missed, as you may still have contract rights and/or a separate lien against holdback money the owner and contractors are obligated to retain, called a “Shimco” lien.     

Call us for more information:

Temporary Suspension of Employment Insurance Deductions and Overpayments and How that Affects Your Severance Pay

Effective March 30, 2025, the Carney Government instituted a number of temporary changes to how Employment Insurance in Canada works. The changes were designed to bring economic relief to workers whose jobs have been lost due to the ongoing trade war with the United States, although they apply to all workers in Canada.

One of the changes has to do with the allocation of earnings from separation from employment. Before these changes, if a terminated employee was paid a severance package, normally this payment would be allocated to a number of weeks or months and the employee would not be entitled to collect Employment Insurance until this time period was up. For instance, if an employee was paid 2 months of severance pay, then they would not be entitled to be paid Employment Insurance until that 2 months was up.

Under the changes, the 2 months severance would not be deducted and therefore would not postpone the employee receiving Employment Insurance benefits. Put another way, the employee gets paid the severance and Employment Insurance for that same period of time.

This change is temporary and currently applies between March 30, 2025 and October 10, 2026. This time period applies to when a claim is made or when an allocation starts.

The allocation wording is important because if an employee gets paid severance down the road after a law suit for wrongful dismissal, then normally the employee would have to report that payment to the government and would have to repay the government Employment Insurance paid over the period of time the severance pay was allocated to. So if the employee got paid 2 months notice after a law suit, then they would have to report that and pay back two months’ worth of Employment Insurance payments. The temporary changes suspend this and the employee would not have to pay back the overpayment.

Because the word allocation is used, this means this temporary change could apply even if the employee did not file an Employment Insurance claim by October 10, 2026, as long as the severance payment was allocated to a period of time before that. For example, if an employee was terminated on October 9, 2026 and got a severance payment of 2 months, but then did not apply for Employment Insurance until December 10, 2026, they would still be entitled to keep the full severance payment without deducting Employment Insurance because the amount would start to be allocated to the day after termination, being October 10, 2026.

The wording also means that as long as a claim is made or an allocation is made during that period of time, then the temporary measure would apply. So if an employee got one year of severance and made a claim on October 1, 2026, then they would be entitled to “keep” the entire year of severance and continue to receive Employment Insurance, it would not cut off on October 10, 2026.

Given theses temporary measures are in response to job instability from the trade war, if Canada has not achieved a resolution of this issue by October 10, 2026, then it is possible these benefits could be extended.

The temporary measures also include waiving the waiting period and extending the number of entitlement weeks for long time employees. The government’s information page on the issue is linked here: Temporary Employment Insurance measures to respond to major changes in economic conditions – Canada.ca

Why are these changes important? For employees, it may make pursuing a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal make more economic sense, if the employee does not have to pay back Employment Insurance benefits as an overpayment.  For employers, the fact that a severance doesn’t have to deducted from Employment Insurance could be used as a negotiating tactic to get an employee to accept less severance than they may have otherwise and should be highlighted by the employer in termination negotiations.

If you have questions about these changes, do not hesitate to contact an experienced Employment lawyer like Robert Carter.

Call us for more information: 604.380.3517