In Ciano Trading & Services C.T. v. Skylink Aviation Inc. the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the appeal of an order staying court proceedings pending the arbitration of the dispute. The arbitration clause at issue was part of a Services Agreement that was terminated prior to commencement of the court proceedings. The Services Agreement listed the provisions that would survive termination, but did not specifically address whether the arbitration clause survived termination. The appellant argued that the motion judge should have found that the arbitration clause did not survive termination of the Services Agreement, and therefore should not have stayed the court proceedings. The Court of Appeal disagreed stating that, because it was arguable whether the arbitration clause survived termination of the Services Agreement, it was preferable to leave the issue of jurisdiction to the arbitrator pursuant to the “competence-competence” principle. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. If you require advice … Read More
Divisional Court dismisses Groia v. LSUC appeal, reveals flawed strategy
Today, the Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed Joseph Groia’s appeal from the Law Society of Upper Canada’s discipline conviction for uncivil conduct during a criminal trial (Groia v. LSUC). One of the recurrent aspects of Groia’s position, both during tribunal and judicial proceedings, was that the Law Society ought not to have prosecuted the lawyer when the trial judge from the criminal trial against Groia’s client, John Felderhof, meted out no disciplinary measure against Groia. Belief in this theory of defence appears to have guided the much of the strategy of the defence. At paragraphs 26-45 of the Divisional Court’s decision, Justice Nordheimer explained that the Law Society, as the statutory regulator of all lawyer conduct, has both the authority and expertise to consider allegations of lawyer misconduct. In contrast, the supervisory role exercised by judges and courts can be tempered by exigencies of the … Read More
Summary Judgment in the Supreme Court of Canada: Hryniak v Mauldin and Its Implications
On March 26, 2014, David Alderson, lawyer with Gilbertson Davis LLP was the Chair / Moderator of Osgoode Hall Law School’s webinar entitled Summary Judgment in the Supreme Court of Canada: Hryniak v Mauldin and Its Implications. The panelists were the Honourable Justice David M. Brown, Superior Court of Justice (Ontario), Professor Janet Walker, Osgoode Hall Law School and Cynthia B. Kuehl, Lerners LLP. A link to the agenda of the Osgoode PD Webinar Summary Judgment in the Supreme Court of Canada: Hryniak v Mauldin and Its Implications is here. David Alderson was one of the counsel for the successful respondents in the Supreme Court of Canada. The related Gilbertson Davis LLP Practice Area is described here.