Duty of signer to ask questions

Despite the preceding cases, there is jurisprudence that suggests that where a party with low literacy skills signs a legally binding agreement and fails to make inquiries or advise the other parties that he/she cannot read or fully understand the nature of and obligations under the contract, a plea of non est facum cannot succeed.

• Alta Vista Towers v. Nalaya, [2000] O.R.H.T.D. No. 45 The landlord in this case applied to the tribunal for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict the tenant because of damage to the premises. The applicant had signed an Occupancy Agreement that stated that he was only an occupant of the unit and that the tenant was “the legal tenant.” The applicant believed that the agreement was an assignment of the lease to him. The tribunal found as fact that the applicant was an occupant of the rental unit and not a tenant and this is clear from the Occupancy Agreement. The tribunal wrote, “If he had any doubts as to the contents of what he had signed, then the onus was on him to satisfy himself of what he had agreed to.”

Situation in Quebec

In Québec, the language in which the contract is written cannot be used as a reason to annul the contract. Thus, a signatory is obliged to insure that he or she understands fully the document he or she is signing

• Social affairs—598, [2000] T.A.Q., files No.SAS-M-022636- 9806 / SAS-M-022842-9807
  
  The court has been seized with two appeals against a decision from the respondent, dated May 21st 1998, claiming from the applicants a sum of $24,217, in reimbursement of income security benefits paid to an individual for whom they acted as a guarantor. The applicants were married and then divorced, but during their married life, they had filed an application to act as guarantors in order to allow the entry into Canada of the male applicant’s mother. Despite their divorce, they bound themselves as guarantors of the mother of the applicant and undertook to reimburse to the Government of Quebec all financial benefits [paid by the latter] during a period of ten years. When the Government of Quebec called in the guarantee, the applicants raised several defences. The female applicant attacked the validity of the undertaking, on the grounds that it is an excessive provision, and that the contract should be held void for lack of consent. The female applicant pretended that she was not capable of understanding the real meaning of the undertaking because of her lack of understanding of the French language.