In Benedetto v. 2453912 Ontario Inc., the Ontario Court of Appeal considered whether a pre-incorporation contract could prevent the forfeiture of a deposit provided pursuant to an agreement of purchase of sale of real property. In this case, the purchaser signed an agreement for purchase and sale of real property, indicating that he was signing as a buyer “in trust for a company to be incorporated without any personal liabilities”. The purchaser then provided $100,000.00 as the deposit to secure the purchase of the property. The purchaser subsequently advised that he would not be closing on the transaction and sought the return of the deposit. The vendor refused and commenced civil proceedings resulting in a summary judgment motion, which was held in favour of the vendor. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the findings of the lower court and indicated that: A forfeited deposit does not constitute damages for breach … Read More
Court Considers Nuisance Test for Neighbours’ Tree in Allen v MacDougall
In the recent case of Allen v MacDougall, 2019 ONSC 1939, a neighbour applied for a court order authorizing the destruction of a maple tree growing amid two Toronto properties. The Ontario Superior Court refused. In its decision, the Court clarified the applicable test for nuisance and confirmed that “the tendency of courts today is that trees are not lightly ordered removed on the basis of being a nuisance.” Facts The large maple tree sat jointly on the land of two neighbours. According to s. 10(2) of The Forestry Act (“Act”), the maple is therefore owned by both neighbours: “Every tree whose trunk is growing on the boundary between adjoining lands is the common property of the owners of the adjoining lands.” The Applicants, as part of their home renovations and extensions, wanted the tree chopped down. The Applicants claimed that their intended home addition on the north side of … Read More
Prescriptive Easements in Ontario Cottage Country
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in Arcon Property Holdings Ltd. v. Nelson, 2019 ONSC 2267, involved a dispute between cottage owners over easement rights related to a 15 foot wide strip of land near Grand Bend. The right-of-way was mainly a paved road used by the cottage owners to access their properties from the road but it also extended past the pavement to the waterfront. The applicant complained that the respondents parked their vehicles on the right-of-way which prevented them from accessing the beach, launching their boat, building ramps and structures to facilitate launching their boat and parking a trailer in their driveway. The applicant sought an order prohibiting the respondents from parking on the right-of-way and interfering with their easement rights. The Court found that the applicant’s easement was merely for “ingress and egress, in, over and upon” the property and did not provide the applicant with the right to access … Read More
Court Finds Waterfront Cottage Sufficiently Unique for Specific Performance
In Carr v Rivet, 2019 ONSC 1546, the Ontario Superior Court recently dismissed a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (“CPL”). In doing so, the Court held that a waterfront cottage on Talon Lake was sufficiently unique to form the basis of a claim for specific performance. Importantly, in addition to finding that the particular cottage was specifically unique to the plaintiffs, the Court noted that most waterfront properties are, by their nature, unique. Unlike mass-produced properties, each waterfront property possesses different exposure and other water-related features that make it unique. Facts The day after their real estate transaction was supposed to close, the Plaintiffs commenced an action seeking specific performance. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs successfully brought an ex parte motion to register a CPL against the property. The Defendant then moved to discharge the CPL arguing, among other things, that the property was not sufficiently unique to support … Read More
Are Section 44 Exam Reports under SABS Subject to PIPEDA Disclosure?
To date, the Ontario personal injury bar has assumed that assessors and “IME” companies performing examinations under s. 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) are subject to access requirements under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). The “leading case” on IME’s and PIPEDA, Wyndowe v. Rousseau, a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, held that a doctor appointed to perform an independent medical examination under a disability insurance policy had to provide access to a final report and notes. The disability insurer’s internal process under the private insurance policy would not have been a formal dispute resolution process and therefore not exempt from PIPEDA. Under clause 9(3)(d) of PIPEDA, an organization is not required to give access to personal information if it was “generated in the course of a formal dispute resolution process.” Is a s. 44 examination subject to that exemption? The federal Office of the Privacy … Read More
Court Clarifies “Clean Hands” Doctrine Applies to Post-Breach Conduct
In 232702 Ontario v 1305 Dundas, 2019 ONSC 1885, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently considered the “clean hands” doctrine in the context of a terminated commercial lease for non-payment of rent. Importantly, the Court clarified that the doctrine of “clean hands” is not restricted to conduct occurring prior to the breach, but encompasses subsequent conduct as well. The Test for Relief from Forfeiture Under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act and s. 20 of the Commercial Tenancies Act, a court may grant relief from forfeiture, including forfeiture of a lease for non-payment of rent. The court’s power to relieve from forfeiture is an equitable remedy. It is discretionary, fact-specific and granted sparingly. The party seeking relief must prove that enforcing the contractual right would lead to inequitable consequences. In Saskatchewan River Bungalows Ltd. v Maritime Life Assurance Co., the Supreme Court of Canada held that a … Read More
Discrimination under Ontario’s Human Rights Code is Restricted to Enumerated Grounds: A Reminder in Stukanov v Paypal Canada Inc.
A recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) serves as a reminder that grounds for discrimination under Ontario’s Human Rights Code (“Code”) are restricted to those enumerated in the Code. Analogous grounds are not prohibited. In Stukanov v Paypal Canada Inc., 2019 HRTO 386, the HRTO dismissed an application alleging that Paypal discriminated against Canadian residents. Facts The applicant wanted to close his U.S. dollar account with Paypal and have the account money sent to him in U.S. dollars, either by cheque or by direct deposit into his U.S. dollar account at his Toronto bank. Paypal, apparently, would not send a cheque to Canada, and would only deposit money into a Canadian dollar account when sending money to a bank located in Canada. The applicant’s primary allegation was that he cannot receive his Paypal funds in U.S. dollars because he is a Canadian resident. He claimed that … Read More
Arbitration Clauses Enforced as Non-Consumers Ejected from Telus Class Action by Supreme Court of Canada
In Telus Communications Inc. v Wellman, 2019 SCC 19, the Supreme Court of Canada has favoured arbitration clauses in staying the claims of non-consumers in a class action against TELUS. The Court’s decision reflects a continued commitment of courts to taking a hands-off approach in upholding valid arbitration agreements, while its citation of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s Uber decision indicates that other routes – such as unconscionability – may be pursued to challenge specific arbitration clauses. Facts A proposed class action was filed in Ontario alleging that TELUS had for a number of years rounded up calls to the next minute without telling customers. The class included both consumers and non-consumers (business customers). Each individually agreed to the same non-negotiable standard form contract. The contract included an arbitration clause requiring all disputes (other than collection of accounts by TELUS) to be mediated, and failing that, arbitrated. Ontario’s Consumer Protection … Read More
Ontario Court of Appeal: There is No Common Law Tort of Harassment
Merrifield v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 ONCA 205 is the first case in which a Canadian appellate court has been required to determine whether a common law tort of harassment exists. The Ontario Court of Appeal has decided that it does not. Ontario Superior Court of Justice Relying on four trial-level decisions, the trial judge held that the tort of harassment exists as a cause-of-action in Ontario and that the elements of the tort are: Outrageous conduct; Intention to cause, or reckless disregard for causing, emotional distress; Suffering of severe or extreme emotional distress; and The outrageous conduct is the actual and proximate cause of the emotional distress. Ontario Court of Appeal The Ontario Court of Appeal held that, in sum, the four trial-level decisions assume rather than establish the existence of the tort or its elements. Contrasting the case at bar with Jones v Tsige, which recognized a new … Read More
Andrew Ottaway Writes Article on CISG for Law Times
The Law Times recently published an article by Andrew Ottaway on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (the “CISG”). The article includes: a discussion of the recent case of Solea International BVBA v. Bassett & Walker International Inc., 2018 ONSC 4261 (CanLII), in which the Ontario Court applied the CISG; a discussion of the near total obscurity of the CISG in Ontario; examples of the notable differences between the CISG and the Ontario common law / Sale of Goods Act. The article can be read in its entirety here. The lawyers at Gilbertson Davis LLP have experience in commercial litigation, including cross-border litigation involving the CISG. Contact us for an initial consultation.
Tests for Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering and Constructive Dismissal clarified by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Colistro v Tbaytel
In Colistro v Tbaytel, 2019 ONCA 197, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently dismissed an appeal and cross-appeal in an employment dispute. Appeal: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Suffering In the appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that three elements comprise the tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering: Flagrant or outrageous conduct; Calculated to produce harm; and Resulting in a visible and provable illness. Objective vs Subjective Following its earlier decisions in Prinzo v Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care and Piresferreira v Ayotte, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the first and third element are objective, while the second is subjective. The Court held that the second element requires the plaintiff to prove that “the defendant must have intended to produce the kind of harm that occurred or have known that it was almost certain to occur” [Boucher v Wal-Mart Canada Corp.]. It is insufficient to show only … Read More
Letters Rogatory | Letters of Request | Request for International Judicial Assistance | Commission Evidence
Free Initial Consultation for US Attorneys Canada is not a party to the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory. Accordingly, we are frequently consulted by US attorneys on behalf of parties to US litigation, and retained to advise upon and obtain enforcement in the courts in Ontario Canada of US court issued Letters Rogatory, Letters of Request or Request for International Judicial Assistance. These sometimes pertain only to the production of documents and other times require the examination in Ontario, Canada of a non-party to the US litigation, or both. We advise on the likely range of costs involved in intended enforcement proceedings. Early retention allows us to advise whether the intended Letters Rogatory, Letters of Request or Request for International Judicial Assistance would likely be enforced by the court in Ontario, Canada. Discovery Deadlines in US Proceedings We are mindful that US attorneys are often working with discovery deadlines within which to complete all examination (deposition) and document production. Once retained, we can proceed efficiently to … Read More
Employee or Not? An Uber Problem to be Decided by Ontario Courts: Arbitration Not the Route
In its first reported decision of the year, the Ontario Court of Appeal has allowed a proposed class action against Uber to proceed in Ontario court. Facts The Appellant commenced a proposed class action in January 2017. They sought, among other things, a declaration that Uber drivers are employees of Uber and governed by Ontario’s Employment Standards Act [“ESA”], as well as $400 million in damages payable to the class for alleged Uber violations of ESA provisions. Prior to certification, Uber brought a motion to stay the proceeding, requesting the court to enforce a clause in the agreement that requires all disputes to be arbitrated in Amsterdam according to the law of the Netherlands. Ontario Superior Court of Justice The motion judge held that the arbitration clause was enforceable and stayed the action. Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s Seidel decision and the Ontario Court of Appeal’s TELUS ruling, the motion … Read More
Gilbertson Davis LLP Welcomes Commercial & Insurance Litigation Lawyer Mahdi Hussein
It is with great pleasure that Gilbertson Davis LLP announces that Commercial & Insurance Litigation Lawyer Mahdi Hussein has joined the Firm. Mahdi obtained his Juris Doctor degree from Osgoode Hall Law School (2016) where he served as a Teaching Assistant, and holds an undergraduate Honours B.A. degree from the University of Toronto, where his successes included placement on the Dean’s List (2009-2013); reserved for the top 10% of Arts & Sciences students), and receipt of the John R. Evans Scholarship (2010) award before graduating with High Distinction. In the Fall of 2011, Mahdi secured the prestigious Killam Fellowship for studies in Washington, D.C., sponsored by Fulbright, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the American Killam Trust. While with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Intellectual Property Clinic Placement, as a Law Student in 2015, Mahdi was engaged in the preparation of reports, and undertook policy … Read More
Gilbertson Davis LLP Successfully Defends Against Appeal of Decision Enforcing Liquidated Damages in Settlement Contract
In Haas v. Viscardi, 2019 ONCA 133, Andrew Ottaway of Gilbertson Davis LLP assisted the plaintiff in securing his settlement agreement with a defendant (in an earlier investment fraud litigation) with a liquidated damages clause. Specifically, the defendant was required to pay $60,000 if he failed to make prompt payments under the subject settlement agreement. The defendant, after defaulting, refused to honour the liquidated damages clause. However, on the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the motion judge upheld the liquidated damages clause and granted judgment. Our blog post on the motion decision can be found here. On appeal, in Haas v. Viscardi, 2019 ONCA 133, the Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s argument that the liquidated damages clause was an unenforceable penalty clause, and upheld the motion judge’s decision granting summary judgment. The Court of Appeal also enforced the provision in the settlement agreement requiring that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s … Read More
Court of Appeal Upholds Dismissal of Recognition Action Based on Limitation Period
In Grayson Consulting Inc. v. Lloyd, 2019 ONCA 79, the plaintiff obtained default judgment in South Carolina dated August 20, 2014 default judgment in the amount of US $451,435,577.37 against the defendant. The plaintiff sought a Mareva injunction (i.e. a freezing order). Although the Court initially granted the injunction, the Court later set aside the injunction in response to the defendant’s motion arguing that the Ontario proceedings were commenced outside the limitation period. See our blog on the motion decision here. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reiterated the applicable test from Independence Plaza 1 Associates, L.L.C. v. Figliolini, 2017 ONCA 44, being: (i) the basic two-year limitation period applies to a proceeding on a foreign judgment; and (ii) the limitation period begins to run when the time to appeal the foreign judgment has expired or, if an appeal is taken, the date of the appeal decision, unless the claim … Read More
Ontario Court Considers United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods on Summary Judgment Motion
In Solea International BVBA v. Bassett & Walker International Inc., 2018 ONSC 4261, the Ontario Court of Appeal had directed the Superior Court to rehear a motion for summary judgment applying the provisions of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”), representing a rare instance of the Ontario Court explicitly considering the CISG. The case involved the sale of shrimp by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant argued, among other things, that it was not required to pay for the shrimp because the plaintiff breached a fundamental term of the contract, being provision of a Health Certificate with a statement guaranteeing that the shrimp was free of certain diseases. The defendant argued that as a result of breach of a fundamental term, it was entitled to declare the contract avoided (pursuant to Article 49 of the CISG). In rejecting that defence, the … Read More