CFLCo will fail … unless

Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

On Feb. 23, 2010, Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp.  Ltd. (CFLCo) filed a motion in Quebec Superior Court commencing proceedings against Hydro-Quebec to address inequities in the 1969 Upper Churchill Power Contract pricing.

The trial is scheduled to begin on Sept. 9 in Montreal. The trial is no longer about the 1969 Upper Churchill Falls power contract pricing. The trial is not to decide if price per kilowatthour is unfair: It is unfair!

The price paid by Hydro-Quebec to CFLCo is only ¼ ¢ until 2016 and 1/5 ¢ for the 25 following years.

Any body who is told the content of the Churchill Falls Power Contract will naturally acknowledge that the price is surprisingly too low.

Again, the trial is about something which has nothing to do with justice or fairness. The trial is about something which has nothing to do with good faith.

The trial is to decide if, according to the Quebec Civil Code, a judge is allowed to modify or even cancel a contract if he has the proof that this specific contract is totally unfair.

Unfortunately, there is no such allowance in the Quebec Civil Code.

A few years ago, imprevison or hardship rules have been deliberately rejected from the Quebec Civil Code. That is why CFLCo will lose the battle in Quebec Superior Court and CFLCo will also lose it in the Supreme Court of Canada. CFLCo will fail … unless … unless Newfoundlanders, all together, tell Quebecers that all power lines feeding the Hydro-Quebec grid would be disconnected if the Churchill Falls Contract is not reopened and rewritten before the beginning of the trial.


Lucien Beauregard

Sainte Julie, Que.

Organizations: Hydro-Quebec, Quebec Superior Court, Churchill Falls Power Contract Supreme Court of Canada

Geographic location: Quebec, Montreal, BeauregardSainte Julie, Que

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • Winston Adams
    July 26, 2013 - 09:24

    Lucien, Your proposal is one of civil disobedience to break the law. Not likely to happen. We should have supported an aboriginal challenge to the unfairness of the Upper Churchill arrangement. On this the Supreme court of Canada could and would have forces a better arrangement, as other cases in Canada have recognized aboriginal rights. In Labrador there was no treaty with the aboriginals and the project proceeded without consultation.

    • Lucien Beauregard
      July 26, 2013 - 21:08

      My proposal is not a civil disobedience. The Churchill Falls contract is a powerfull law, above any law according to the Quebec Civil Law. However, when a law is totally unfair, when a law is opposite to natural justice, this law is no longer a law... and it is a must to break that law.!