The Ontario Court of Appeal recently confirmed the proper appeal procedure for an arbitrator’s ruling on a preliminary question in an arbitration. Joseph Lebovic Charitable Foundation v. Jewish Foundation of Greater Toronto, 2024 ONCA 933, concerned an appeal of an application decision. The application judge was asked to review a ruling from the parties’ arbitrator on his own jurisdiction to hear the issues before him, which was upheld. We invite you to read our firm’s blog on the application judge’s decision for more information. The applicants sought leave to appeal the application judge’s decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The respondents brought a motion to quash this appeal on the basis that the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to hear it was precluded by section 17(9) of the Arbitration Act 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 (the “Act”). The Court of Appeal agreed with the respondents and quashed the applicants’ … Read More
Superior Court of Justice for Ontario Continues to Clarify the Utility of Summary Judgment in Failed Real Estate Transactions
In Kinariwala v Ruiz, 2024 ONSC 7188, the Superior Court of Justice – Ontario, dealt with yet another summary judgment motion involving a failed purchase agreement for a residential property. In Kinariwala v Ruiz, the defendant had agreed to purchase a piece of property located in Windsor, Ontario for $465,000.0 but failed to close the transaction, citing an inability to secure financing. This breach led the seller/plaintiff to re-list and eventually sell the property at a significantly reduced price of $340,000.00. The plaintiff sought to recover the financial losses incurred, including the difference in sale prices and holding costs. At the hearing of the motion, the Court addressed two primary issues between the parties. First, the court confirmed that the defendant breached the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (“APS”) for the property. Despite her claim that misrepresentations about the property’s income as a successful Airbnb potentially influenced her decision to … Read More
Joint Tenancy and Tenancy in Common: Ontario Court of Appeal Sets Out Key Difference
In Jackson v. Rosenberg, 2024 ONCA 875, The Ontario Court of Appeal revisited a key concept in Ontario property law: the joint tenancy, and how it is distinguished from from a tenancy in common. The Appellant was the great-niece of the Respondent’s romantic partner. In or around 2012, The Respondent conveyed a 50% joint tenancy in his primary residence to the Appellant through a gratuitous transfer. The Respondent’s evidence was that this transfer was made so that title of his house could pass to the Respondent upon his death without needing to pay probate fees. In or around 2020, the Respondent became concerned that the Appellant was going to use the joint tenancy the Respondent had conveyed to in 2012 to force him out of his home. The Respondent engaged a lawyer to convert the Appellant’s joint tenancy interest into a tenancy in common. The Appellant commenced an appeal … Read More
The Role of Summary Judgment in Real Estate Disputes: Reid v. Abass, 2024 ONSC 7083
In Reid v. Abass, 2024 ONSC 7083, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice highlights the efficiency and clarity that summary judgment can bring to disputes arising from complex real estate transactions. This case in Reid v Abass arose from the defendants’ failure to close a real estate transaction under a February 24, 2022, Agreement of Purchase and Sale (“APS”) for $999,000. Following an alleged anticipatory breach by the defendants, the parties renegotiated the terms under a July 7, 2022, Extension Agreement, which set a reduced purchase price of $850,000 and a new closing date of July 28, 2022. The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for damages representing the difference between the original and renegotiated prices, claiming the defendants remained liable under the original APS despite closing under the revised agreement. The defendants argued the extension agreement released them from liability if they closed on the new date. Both parties agreed that … Read More
Krieser v. Seligman, 2024 ONCA 827: Clashes Over Contracts, Claims, and Residential Construction
In Krieser v. Seligman, 2024 ONCA 827, the case revolved around the construction of a luxury home in Forest Hill, Toronto, and a subsequent legal battle involving allegations of contract breaches, construction deficiencies, and claims of fiduciary duty. In 2004, the plaintiffs contracted the defendant to build their home. While construction progressed, disputes emerged, leading the plaintiffs to withhold payments. Litigation ensued in 2007, with both parties asserting significant claims: the plaintiffs sought damages for alleged deficiencies, while defendant pursued payment for outstanding invoices. The case culminated in a trial in 2022-2023, where the trial court largely ruled against the plaintiffs. The appeal focused on two primary issues: the alleged breach of contract and a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs argued that the trial judge erred in finding their delayed payments constituted a breach that disentitled them from warranty claims. Additionally, they contended the judge failed to … Read More
Lessons from Paracha v. Naqi Construction Ltd.: The Importance of Written Agreements and Credibility in Real Estate Disputes
In the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Paracha v. Naqi Construction Ltd., 2024 ONCA 816, the case involved a dispute over four real estate transactions, contested ownership interests, and allegations of financial misconduct. The case arose from investments made by the in four properties, with funds allegedly advanced to the appellants property acquisition, renovation, and sale. While the respondents claimed ownership interests in the properties, the appellants asserted the funds were loans. The absence of written agreements made the trial judge’s reliance on witness testimony and circumstantial evidence central to resolving the dispute. A critical factor in the trial court’s decision was its assessment of credibility. The trial judge found that the appellants’ testimony lacked reliability and that their arguments were contradicted by other witnesses, including a credible real estate agent. In contrast, the respondents’ evidence was found to be consistent and corroborated by independent inspections and documentation. … Read More
Evidence in Summary Judgment Motions: Ontario Superior Court Provides Guidance for Responding Parties
A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Court”) provides an important reminder for parties responding to a summary judgment motion. In Lukey Capital Corp v. 1000110300 Ontario Inc. et al, 2024 ONSC 6589 (“Lukey Capital”), the plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment before the Court for the payment of a loan it made to the Defendants under a promissory note. Upon reviewing the evidence before it, the Court granted the sought relief. In doing so, the Court underscored a key principle for parties responding to a summary judgment motion to keep in mind. The Defendants made several arguments that there were genuine issues in the proceeding which required a trial. Among these arguments was a submission that other evidence may be uncovered through further examinations and productions which would support their defence. The Court, echoing well-settled principles regarding evidence on summary judgment motions … Read More
Staying a Court Order Pending Appeal: Temagami (Municipality) v. Temagami Barge Limited et al.
In civil litigation, the ultimate goal is to obtain a final order granting a remedy for the successful party. But what if the final order is under appeal, and the appellant stands to suffer prejudice from the order’s effects while they wait for their day in appeals court? What recourse is available to appellants to limit their harm from an order that, in their view, was incorrect in the first place? The Ontario Court of Appeal was recently tasked with answering this question in Temagami (Municipality) v. Temagami Barge Limited, 2024 ONCA 859. The respondents successfully brought an application for a permanent injunction which prohibited the appellants from conducting certain commercial activities on their property. While the parties’ appeal was waiting to be heard before the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “Court”), these prohibitions would remain in effect, to the detriment of the appellants’ business. As such, the appellants … Read More
Essential Terms of a Contract: Ontario Superior Court of Justice Confirms Agreements Must Be Complete and Concise
In Qureshi v. Zeema Investments Incorporated, 2024 ONSC 5855, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice emphasized the importance of ensuring that the essential terms of contractual agreement are comprehensive and clear. This summary judgment arose from an unpaid commission payment on a real estate transaction. A broker was mediating a purchase and sale of a hotel between a buyer and seller. the broker and buyer had executed a Buyer’s Representation Agreement (the “BRA”) listing the commission owing to the broker by the buyer on closing at “TBD,” and was to be confirmed upon executing an agreement. The BRA required a commission to be paid to the broker in the event of buyer default on any agreement of purchase and sale that is entered. The broker subsequently entered a Commission Agreement with the seller, which included a commission payment of $650,000 that was owed by the seller to the broker on … Read More
Promises vs. Paperwork: Ontario Court Clarifies Limits of Proprietary Estoppel in Share Disputes in Burwell et al v. Wozniak, 2024 ONSC 5851
In the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision Burwell et al v Wozniak, 2024 ONSC 5851, the Court examined complex trust and proprietary estoppel issues between former partners. The decision in Burwell clarifies the boundaries of proprietary estoppel within Ontario law and emphasizes the importance of consistency between preliminary promises and formal agreements in trust disputes. The applicant and respondent were involved in a former relationship, during which time the applicant and their business partner launched a subscriber-based billing management software company (the “Company”). The applicant sought to establish a family trust; however, the pair separated. Wishing to reconcile the relationship, the applicant sent the respondent an email purporting to bequeath her fifty (50) percent of the shares of the Company (the “Email”). Later the pair finalized a trust agreement appointing the applicant and respondent as beneficiaries. However, the trust agreement did not clearly define the ownership of the … Read More
Promissory Estoppel, Part Performance, and Limitation Periods: Ontario Superior Court Refuses to Enforce Mortgage Beyond 10-Year Limit
In Albrecht v 1300880 Ontario Inc., 2024 ONSC 3328, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice examined key legal principles surrounding the extension of limitation periods through promissory estoppel and part performance. The case involved a mortgage that had been in default for over a decade, with the mortgagee seeking enforcement beyond the statutory limitation period (the “Mortgage”). The applicant sought to have the Mortgage discharged, arguing that enforcement was barred under Ontario’s Real Property Limitations Act (“RPLA”) ten-year cutoff. The respondent countered by asserting that an oral agreement between the parties extended the limitation period, relying on promissory estoppel and part performance to justify enforcement despite the expired limitation period. Citing the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which prevents a party from reneging on a promise without formal consideration, the respondent claimed there was an oral agreement to delay the enforcement of the Mortgage until the applicant’s financial condition improved, thereby … Read More
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985) – More States adopt Model Law Legislation
In 1981, an international working group was formed with the objective of creating a model law for commercial arbitration. The goal was to develop a framework for utilization as a reference for domestic legislation by nations aiming to establish a contemporary legal structure promoting commercial arbitration. The Model Law was formally adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), on June 21, 1985. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, sometimes known as the Model Law, provides the basis of Ontario’s statute for the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Sched. 5. In 1986, Canada was the first country to adopt the Model Law with the federal Commercial Arbitration Act, and British Columbia was the first jurisdiction in the world to adopt the Model Law with the enactment of the International Arbitration Act. Today, legislation based on the Model law has been adopted … Read More
Summary Judgment Granted, Costs Awarded – Ontario Superior Court grants Summary Judgment in FactR Limited v. R.R.I.C.H. Construction, 2024 ONSC 4792
Summary judgment is a powerful procedural mechanism, allowing a party to file a motion to resolve a case early in the proceedings if there are no genuine issues for trial. In FactR Limited v. R.R.I.C.H. Construction, 2024 ONSC 4792, the Ontario Superior Court recently demonstrated the enhanced fact-finding powers afforded to judges when determining summary judgment motions involving contractual breaches and conversion of property. In FactR Limited v. R.R.I.C.H. Construction, the plaintiffs sought to recover money loaned to two defendants (the “Contract Defendants”) through invoicing factoring agreements (the “Agreements”), as well as an additional defendant for their alleged role in improperly converting a cheque payable to the plaintiffs (the “Fraudulent Defendant”). The motion judge ultimately ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, granting summary judgment and concluding there were no genuine issues requiring a trial. At the hearing for the summary judgment motion, the plaintiffs tendered evidence demonstrating the Contract Defendants’ … Read More
No Adjournment Granted, International Arbitration Award Upheld: Court of Appeal for Ontario
In Xiamen International Trade Group Co., Ltd. v. LinkGlobal Food Inc., 2024 ONCA 605, the respondent brought an application in Ontario to enforce an international arbitration award from China. During the hearing of this request, the appellant sought an adjournment of the hearing to initiate legal proceedings in China. The goal of these proceedings was aimed at compelling the appellant’s former legal counsel to provide testimony regarding alleged breaches of natural justice in the international arbitration process. Such breaches, if substantiated, may have resulted in the refusal to enforce the arbitration award. The Court of Appeal for Ontario denied the appellant’s argument, noting that the scope of denial for an international arbitration award is “narrow” and without evidence or substantive submissions with an air of reality, judgment should be granted to enforce the order. The Court of Appeal remarked that the appellant had a complete year from the date of … Read More
Ontario Court of Appeal Orders Payment of Outstanding Costs Order before Appeal is Heard
In Rathod v Chijindu, 2024 ONCA 625, the moving parties brought a motion (the ”Motion”) seeking, among other things, an Order dismissing the appeal brought by the respondents concerning a decision by a lower Court in Rathod v. Chijindu et al, 2024 ONSC 939 (“939”). The moving parties submitted that the appeal should be dismissed due to the respondents’ non-payment of the costs Order in 939. At the Motion hearing, the Court of Appeal agreed, holding that the respondents were required to pay the overdue costs Order in 939 within seven (7) days. As background, the respondents obtained substantial loans from the moving parties to finance mortgages on two properties. Following their default on these mortgages, the properties were sold via a power of sale and the net proceeds from these transactions were paid into the Court. The funds were then ordered to be distributed to the moving parties to … Read More
Jurisdiction of Arbitrator Through Parties’ Conduct Affirmed by Ontario Divisional Court: Actions Speak Louder than Words
In The Joseph Lebovic Charitable Foundation et al. v. Jewish Foundation of Greater Toronto, 2024 ONSC 4400, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the authority of an arbitrator to find his own jurisdiction over issues in dispute between parties in an arbitration, and reminded parties that their conduct can imply their approval of an arbitrator’s jurisdiction. The applicants entered a donor agreement to make a sizable charitable donation to the respondent, payable in installments. In return, the respondent would name its campus in Vaughan after the applicants. The donor agreement included an arbitration clause, where parties would submit to arbitrations for “a dispute arising out of, or in connection with, the agreement.” A dispute indeed arose between the parties over a proposed sale of part of the campus named after the applicants, as well as the applicants’ payment schedule of their donation. Both parties filed Notices of Arbitration under the … Read More
Notice, a Condition Precedent to Coverage – Ontario Court of Appeal says no Relief of Forfeiture for Late Notice of Claim
In the recent case of Furtado v Underwriters, 2024 ONCA 579, the Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal from an insured party challenging an application judge’s decision denying coverage under a Directors and Officers policy (the “Policy”). The Court upheld the application judge’s ruling, determining that the insured had reported its loss beyond the specified notice period outlined in the contract, as well as affirming the recent legal precedents concerning the doctrine of relief from forfeiture in the insurance context. While the Policy was in effect, the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC“) initiated inquiries into the business dealings of Go-To, a company in which the insured held a directorial position. Following this, the OSC issued an Order for the insured to produce certain documents related to the investigation into Go-To. As part of the process, the insured was cautioned by the OSC that section 16(1) of the Securities Act prohibited … Read More