The doctrine of frustration of contract is a legal principle that can be used to excuse parties from performing their contractual obligations, where unforeseen events have rendered the original terms of the contract impossible or impracticable.

In Canada, the doctrine of frustration of contract is a common law principle that has been recognized by the courts. It is important to note that frustration of contract will only apply in certain circumstances, and the party seeking to rely on this principle must be able to demonstrate that the unforeseen event was beyond their control, and that the contract has become impossible to perform as a result.

Examples of events that may lead to frustration of contract include natural disasters, government intervention, or the death or incapacity of one of the parties. It is important to note that economic or commercial hardship, or even a change in the fortunes of one party, will generally not be sufficient to constitute frustration of contract.

In order to successfully rely on the doctrine of frustration of contract in Canada, the party seeking to rely on this principle must demonstrate that the event that led to frustration was not foreseeable at the time the contract was formed, and that it was not caused by an act or omission of that party.

It is also important to note that even if frustration of contract is established, this does not necessarily mean that the contract is automatically terminated. Rather, the effect of frustration may be to excuse the party from performing their obligations under the contract, and to discharge both parties from further liability.

In conclusion, the doctrine of frustration of contract is an important legal principle that can be used to excuse parties from performing their contractual obligations in certain circumstances. In Canada, this principle has been recognized by the courts, and may be relied upon where unforeseen events have rendered the original terms of the contract impossible or impracticable. However, it is important to seek legal advice before relying on this principle, as the circumstances in which it may apply can be complex and difficult to establish.