In Charlie Andrews v. Great Gulf, 2019 HRTO 370, the applicant, a condominium owner, alleges that the respondent, builder of the condominium complex, failed to provide gender-inclusive washrooms in the pool and stream areas of the condominium building. The builder of the condominium complex did not file a response, but rather, asked that the matter be dismissed as it had no prospect of success, as the builder could not be held liable for the alleged discrimination, since: It no longer had an ongoing service relationship with the condominium; The applicant, as a condominium board member could not point to any requests by any individual, including themselves, that the builder or condominium provide gender-inclusive change rooms; The subject areas that were allegedly discriminatory were located in the common elements of the condominium and related to accessibility, rendering it the responsibility of the condominium, of which the applicant was a member; and At the time the … Read More
Maryland judgment domesticated in Ontario
In Kaveh v Kaveh Semnani 2019 ONSC 996, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was asked to determine whether the Maryland Court had jurisdiction and if the judgment could be recognized and enforced in Ontario. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant owed him money and the Defendant argued that the Maryland Court did not have proper jurisdiction to hear the case. The Defendants did not defend the case before the Maryland Court and a default judgment was granted in their absence. Subsequently, the Plaintiff sought to have the Maryland judgment recognized in Ontario. Real and substantial connection test The Court applied the ‘real and substantial connection test’ which functions only to test whether the Maryland Court correctly assumed jurisdiction over the matter. The Ontario Court did not consider the facts of the original matter before the Maryland Court, except to consider if the facts would relate to any potential defence … Read More
Ontario Health Professions College Complaints: Some Do’s and Don’ts
The dreaded day has suddenly come, and your professional college informs you that a patient or someone you assessed months ago for an auto insurance claim has lodged a frivolous complaint under the Regulated Health Professions Act. (“Act”) (The college won’t use the word “frivolous,” of course.) Draw a deep breath and banish any thoughts of making an angry response. Instead, consider the Japanese martial art of Jujitsu , where one’s strongest weapon is the ability channel the force of one’s opponent against him. Under schedule 2 of the Act, named the Health Professions Procedural Code (“Code”), every health profession college in Ontario maintains an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) to investigate and vet complaints against members. It does not matter whether you are a doctor, a psychologist or an occupational therapist. The Code requires each college to follow the same general procedure. While it may seem that this … Read More
Fork In the Road: Critical Considerations by Condominium Corporations in Anticipatory Failed Closings
In 1179 Hunt Club Inc. v. Ottawa Medical Square Inc., 2019 ONCA 700, the purchasers, Ottawa Medical Square Group, entered into an Agreement for Purchase and Sale to purchase condominium units owned by the vendor, 1179 Hunt Club Inc. The value of the commercial condominium units in the Hunt Club Project was $5.6 million dollars. Five days before closing, the purchasers, sent a request to the vendor, requesting an extension of time as the purchasers had not yet finalized their arrangements for financing. Three days before closing, the vendor advised that it would insist on closing, and if the purchaser could not close, it would exercise its rights and remedies under the Agreement for Purchase and Sale. On the date of closing, the vendor learned that the Land Registry Office had made an error in assigning parcel identification numbers. Although this error was ameliorated later that day, this mishap, prevented … Read More
David Street to facilitate at the Law Society of Ontario’s Advanced Roundtable on Shareholder Disputes.
On October 2, 2019 David Street will be one of four corporate lawyer facilitators at the Law Society of Ontario’s Advanced Roundtable on Shareholder Disputes. This continuing professional development program is intended to assist corporate lawyers and litigators to work together to manage and assess shareholder disputes and better resolve such disputes when they do arise.
Toronto Condo Arbitrator – Independent, Reasonable Fees and Available
David Alderson, LL.B., LL.M, Q.Arb – Condo Dispute Arbitrator Sole Arbitrator – $495.00 per hour, plus HST David has been accredited by the ADR Institute as Canada as a Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb). He accepts appointments as a commercial arbitrator, including as condominium dispute arbitrator, at a reasonable hourly fee rate, plus facilities and applicable taxes) and with good availability. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has appointed David in commercial (including condominium) arbitration matters. David is a member of the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society, and has successfully completed the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society Gold Standard Course in Commercial Arbitration. He is also a Full Member of the ADR Institute of Ontario and appears in its Member Directory. He has legal experience in arbitration in under different institutional and ad hoc rules, in a wide variety of matters. David accepts appointment as sole arbitrator and party-appointed arbitrator in a wide variety of condominium disputes. David has … Read More
Guidance from the Court – Procedure to Resolve Mortgage Discharge Issues under the Mortgages Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure
In Sub-Prime Mortgage Corporation v. 1219076 Ontario Limited, 2019 ONCA 581, the Ontario Court of Appeal was asked to determine, the proper procedure to discharge a mortgage or contest the discharge of a mortgage, under the Mortgages Act, and the Rules of Civil Procedure. In the lower court decision, Sub-Prime Mortgage Corporation (“Sub Prime”), the second mortgagee, issued two urgent applications against 1219076 Ontario Limited (“121”), the first mortgagee, to obtain an immediate discharge of two mortgages on two properties placed by 121, by paying money into court, pending further court orders, or a resolution between the parties, at para 1. In its application, Sub-Prime did not specifically seek an order determining the balance owing for each mortgage. To support its application, Sub-Prime cited and relied on section 12(3), 12(9) and 22 of the Mortgages Act, R.S.O. and Rule 14.05(a), (d), and (e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, at para … Read More
Removing Deadwood from the Register – Challenging Registration for Non-Use of a Trade-Mark In Canada
In Barrette Legal Inc. v. Lawee Enterprises, L.L.C., the requesting party, (“Barette”), sought to remove the owner’s (“Lawee”) Mark, from the trade-mark register for non-use, pursuant to section 45 of the Trade-marks Act (“Act”). Lawee was the registered owner of the trade-mark “Smart For Life Cookie Thin”, which it used to describe and advertise cookies it sold (“goods”). Barrette challenged this registration for alleged non-use in Canada in between May 18, 2013 – May 18, 2016, at para 3. What Constitute “Use” of a Trade-Mark Section 4(1) of the Act states that a trade-mark is deemed to be used in association with goods, if at the time of the transfer of the property in, or possession of the goods, in the normal course of trade, it is marked on the goods or its packaging, or in any manner in which notice of the association is provided to the person whom … Read More
24 the New 36? Court of Appeal Reaffirms Presumptive Ceiling in Reasonable Notice Case
In Dawe v. The Equitable Life Insurance Company of Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that, absent exceptional circumstances, the presumptive ceiling for reasonable notice is 24 months. In Dawe, the plaintiff was a Senior Vice President of an insurance company and was terminated after 37 years of employment without cause, following a minor dispute relating to the purchase and use of promotional sporting event tickets. As a result, the plaintiff sued his employer for wrongful dismissal. Both the plaintiff and his employer moved for partial summary judgment on two issues: (1) the calculation of the proper notice period, and (2) the plaintiff’s entitlement to his employer’s bonus plan, at para 4. The plaintiff was successful on the motion for partial summary judgment and the motion judge determined that 30 months was the appropriate notice period and that the plaintiff was entitled to his bonus during this period. In … Read More
Commercial Lease Dispute Arbitrator – Leasing Disputes and Rent Arbitration
David Alderson, LL.B., LL.M, Qualified Arbitrator – Arbitrator for Commercial Lease Disputes Sole Arbitrator – $495.00 per hour, plus HST David has been accredited by the ADR Institute as Canada as a Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb). He accepts appointments as a commercial arbitrator, including as commercial lease dispute arbitrator, at reasonable hourly rates and with good availability. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has appointed David in commercial arbitration matters. David is a member of the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society, and has successfully completed the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society Gold Standard Course in Commercial Arbitration. He is also a Full Member of the ADR Institute of Ontario and appears in its Member Directory. David is Member Roster Arbitrator on the Ontario Bar Association Remote Arbitration and Mediation List. Local Experience David has appeared as a barrister in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (including the Commercial List), the Divisional Court, the Ontario Court of Appeal, the … Read More
Toronto Arbitrator for Shareholder Disputes, Partnership Disputes and Property Disputes
David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M, Q.Arb: Commercial Arbitrator for Shareholder Disputes, Partnership Disputes and Joint Venture Disputes Competitive Hourly Fee Rates Offered. Sole Arbitrator – $495.00 per hour, plus HST David has been accredited by the ADR Institute as Canada as a Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb). He accepts appointments as a commercial arbitrator (sole arbitrator and party appointee) at reasonable hourly rates and with good availability. He accepts appointment as arbitrator in shareholder disputes, partnership disputes and joint venture disputes. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has appointed David as arbitrator in commercial arbitration matters. David is a member of the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society, and has successfully completed the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society Gold Standard Course in Commercial Arbitration. He is also a Full Member of the ADR Institute of Ontario and appears in its Member Directory. David is on the Member Arbitrator on the Ontario Bar Association Remote Arbitration and Mediation Member Roster. David has … Read More
When May an Academic Complaint be Brought to Court? Clarification from the Ontario Court of Appeal
In Lam v University of Western Ontario, 2019 ONCA 82, the Ontario Court of Appeal reiterated that courts have jurisdiction over claims for damages for breach of contract and tort even when the claims arose out of an academic dispute. Judicial History After commencement of the action by the student, the university brought a motion for summary judgment. The principal basis for the motion was that the student’s claim related to the university’s decisions about teaching, mentoring, supervising and administering its Ph.D. program and therefore to matters that are “purely academic in nature” [para 22]. The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action. The motion judge held that academic issues must be distinguished from legal issues when reviewing a university’s conduct, and that academic issues are to be resolved by the university’s internal process, subject to judicial review [para 23]. In reversing the motion judge’s decision, the Court of … Read More
Irreparable Harm for Injunctive Relief Determined by Court, Not Agreement
In dismissing a motion for an interlocutory injunction, the Ontario Superior Court in Homestead House Paint Co. Inc. v Jamieson, 2019 ONSC 2660 (“Homestead”), recently reiterated that a clause deeming a breach to cause irreparable harm does not displace the courts’ exclusive role to determine whether injunctive relief is appropriate and whether or not irreparable harm has been established. The RJR MacDonald Test In RJR-MacDonald v Canada (AG), 1994 SCC 117, the Supreme Court of Canada established the well-known test for an interlocutory injunction. The moving party is required to prove that: There is a serious issue to be tried; That the moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the relief is not granted; and The balance of convenience favours granting the injunction. Irreparable Harm Irreparable harm is defined as harm that “cannot be quantified in monetary terms or which cannot be cured” [RJR-Macdonald]. In Homestead, the moving party argued … Read More
Court of Appeal Analyzes Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
In Forbes Energy Group Inc. v. Parsian Energy Rad Gas, 2019 ONCA 372 (CanLII), the plaintiff commenced an action seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to make payments to the defendants under a contract. The contract contained a clause stating that it was “governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and the Parties agree to attorn to the courts of England”. The defendants sought to stay the action on the basis of that clause in favour of the courts of England. The motion judge granted a stay, finding that the plaintiff had failed to meet the test to displace a forum selection clause: to demonstrate “strong cause” that the clause should not be enforced. On appeal, the Court of Appeal stated the “strong cause” test only applies to forum selection clauses that grant exclusive jurisdiction to a foreign jurisdiction. The motion judge did not … Read More
Determining a “Series of Incidents” under Ontario’s Human Rights Code
The recent decision in Martin v Trinity United Church, 2019 HRTO 726 highlights limitation periods and the applicable factors to determine what constitutes a “series of incidents” under Ontario’s Human Rights Code (“Code”). Limitation Period under Ontario’s Code Section 34 of the Code provides that a person who believes that his or her rights under Part I of the Code have been infringed must apply to the Tribunal: (a) Within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or (b) If there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series. Late applications are allowed if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay. Determining a “Series of Incidents” In order to establish that discrimination constituted a “series of incidents,” there must be a connection … Read More
Obiter or Not? A Refresher from the Ontario Court of Appeal
The recent case of The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. v VimpelCom Ltd., 2019 ONCA 354 [Catalyst], serves as a reminder that a court’s finding will not be considered obiter simply because there was another sufficient basis for the court’s decision. The Rule of Precedent The rule of precedent requires that courts render decisions that are consistent with the previous decisions of higher courts [Canada (AG) v Bedford, 2012 ONCA 186]. There are several well-known rationales for the rule: it promotes consistency, certainty and practicability in the law, sound judicial administration, and it enhances the legitimacy and acceptability of the common law [David Polowin Real Estate Ltd. v Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., 2005 ONCA 21093]. Ratio vs Obiter The traditional dichotomy of ratio decidendi (“ratio”) and obiter dicta (“obiter”) is important for the scope of the rule. Only the ratio is binding on a subsequent court. Ratio refers to … Read More
Ontario Cottage Litigation Lawyers: Able to Assist in Disputes Involving Cottage Owners, Purchasers, or Sellers
From our office in Toronto, Ontario, we are able to provide efficient and result-oriented solutions with respect to the unique issues arising from cottage and recreational property disputes. Failures to Close Failures to complete an agreement of purchase and sale may be due to the Vendor or the Purchaser. Failures of the Purchaser are often attributable to the Purchaser’s inability to obtain financing that was anticipated from a mortgage or another property sale. In some instances, the Vendor may retain the deposit and claim damages for losses sustained from the failure to close. Failures to close may also be due to the Vendor. Frequently, the Vendor’s failure to close is due to the Vendor’s inability to provide clean title to the property or to perform the necessary repairs prior to closing. In some instances, a Purchaser will seek to recover damages for any resultant loss, while in other cases the … Read More