Rafferty v. Xinhua Finance Limited is a significant case in Canadian law concerning reasonable expectations of parties in contract law, particularly regarding the exercise of contractual discretion. The case, heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2013, involved a dispute over deferred compensation owed to Michael Rafferty, a former executive of Xinhua Finance Limited.
Rafferty had been employed by Xinhua under an employment agreement that included a deferred compensation plan. This plan allowed for the payment of compensation in the future, contingent on certain conditions. Crucially, the plan gave Xinhua’s board of directors discretion to determine the amount and timing of these payments. After Rafferty’s employment ended, a dispute arose regarding the payment of his deferred compensation.
Xinhua argued that the board had exercised its discretion and determined that Rafferty was not entitled to the full amount claimed. They asserted that the plan provided them with broad authority to make such decisions and that their decision was reasonable considering the circumstances.
Rafferty, on the other hand, argued that Xinhua had not exercised its discretion in good faith and that their decision was unreasonable. He contended that the board’s decision was motivated by factors unrelated to the purposes of the deferred compensation plan, such as a desire to reduce costs or punish him for leaving the company. He argued that the discretion granted to the board was not unfettered and that it had to be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the principles of good faith.
The Ontario Court of Appeal ultimately ruled in favor of Rafferty. The Court emphasized that even when a contract grants one party discretionary power, that discretion must be exercised reasonably and in good faith. It held that Xinhua’s board had not acted reasonably in exercising its discretion regarding Rafferty’s deferred compensation.
The Court found that the board had considered irrelevant factors when making its decision. It highlighted that the reasons given by Xinhua for reducing the compensation were not consistent with the purpose of the deferred compensation plan, which was to incentivize and retain key employees. The Court concluded that the board had acted in a manner that was inconsistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties at the time the contract was formed.
Rafferty v. Xinhua Finance Limited is important because it clarifies the limitations on contractual discretion in Canadian law. It underscores that even when a contract appears to grant broad discretionary powers, those powers must be exercised reasonably, in good faith, and in a manner consistent with the purpose of the contract. The case serves as a reminder that courts will scrutinize the exercise of contractual discretion to ensure that it is not used to unfairly prejudice the other party or undermine the fundamental principles of contract law. It is a key case cited in discussions about contractual interpretation and the obligation of good faith in contractual performance.