Legal Issue: Whether exclusion clauses in a contract effectively ousted the implied statutory condition under Ontario’s Sale of Goods Act (SGA) that goods must correspond with their description.

Facts:

• Pine Valley, hired by Toronto for a drainage project, purchased topsoil from Earthco based on prior lab tests.
• To avoid delays and penalties, Pine Valley waived further testing.
• Delivered topsoil had more clay than specified, causing project issues, leading to Pine Valley suing Earthco.

Lower Court Rulings:

• Trial Judge: Dismissed Pine Valley's claim, stating exclusion clauses negated the implied statutory condition.
• Court of Appeal: Reversed the decision, ruling the clauses did not clearly exclude liability for the statutory condition.

Supreme Court Decision:

• Majority (Martin J.): Allowed the appeal, reinstating the trial decision. Held that the exclusion clauses in the contract were sufficient to negate the implied condition under the SGA, reflecting the parties’ intention to exclude statutory protection by express agreement.
• Dissent (Côté J.): Argued the clauses did not clearly exclude the implied condition related to the description of goods as required by the SGA.

Outcome: The Supreme Court restored the trial judge’s decision, ruling that Earthco’s exclusion clauses effectively ousted the implied statutory condition. The Court of Appeal’s decision ordering Earthco to pay Pine Valley damages in the amount assessed by the trial judge, $350,386.23, was upheld.