Law and Business students gain a solid understanding of many key legal issues in the corporate world, including contract negotiations, human resources, policy development and property transactions, as well as areas that are of increasing importance and significance such as corporate social responsibility and corporate governance. Critical thinking and the application of legal knowledge are at the heart of all courses offered in the Law and Business major, providing students with the strongest integration of law and business among all business programs in Canada.
Faculty teaching in the Law and Business program are renowned experts in their areas of study which include: international law, human rights law, privacy, government regulation, environmental law and corporate social responsibility. Students pursuing a business degree in Law benefit from professors who have extensive years of industry experience and strong connections to businesses, governments and NGOs.
Congratulations to our LBSA team who won Best Academic Event at this year's Ted Rogers Student Society's Awards Night (2016-2017). This is awarded to an event that is most relevant to learning done in the classroom.
Abstract: In Bhasin v Hrynew, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized good faith in contractual performance to be a ‘general organizing principle’ of the common law of contract. The true impact of Bhasin on the future development of the Canadian contract law remains the subject of considerable debate among legal scholars and practitioners. This article explores Bhasin’s evolutionary impact on the Canadian common law of contract, by providing an institutional understanding of the general organizing principle of good faith in contractual performance. It is contended that Bhasin’s contribution to the common law of contract is institutional rather than substantive – Bhasin fundamentally alters the organization of the sources of contract law by introducing a new law-making mechanism (that is, ‘law-making through good faith’) that is separate from, and potentially supersedes, the traditional doctrine of precedent. To support the central claim that Bhasin’s contribution is institutional rather than substantive, I employ three different kinds of arguments that correspond to three distinct, but closely related, dimensions of the principle of good faith in contractual performance: (a) semantic structure; (b) historical origins; and (c) economic function. Although these three lines of inquiry rest on quite different methodological premises, they converge in supporting the central idea that good faith performance is best understood as an institutional mechanism to allocate law-making power rather than a substantive legal principle.