The Ontario Court of Appeal in Butera v. Chown, Cairns LLP, 2017 ONCA 783, recently overturned an award of partial summary judgment in a professional negligence action and provided guidance on the appropriate circumstances in which partial summary judgment motions should be brought. In the original action, the plaintiffs brought an action against various Mitsubishi companies after their Mitsubishi dealership franchise failed, claiming damages for breach of contract, misrepresentation, negligence and breaches of the Arthur Wishart Act. The original action was dismissed on summary judgment because the applicable two-year limitation period had passed. The plaintiffs were also ordered to pay $150,000 in costs for both the action and the summary judgment motion. The plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment motion decision and argued that a six-year limitation period was applicable notwithstanding that they had conceded at the motion that the applicable limitation period was two years. The appeal was dismissed. The plaintiffs then brought the subject action against their former lawyers for negligence. The plaintiffs claimed damages for … Read More
Court of Appeal States that Security for Costs Should Not be Treated Differently for Recognition and Enforcement Actions
Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation, 2017 ONCA 741 arose from an action by the Plaintiffs to enforce an Ecuadorean judgment in Ontario against the Defendant. The Defendants obtained summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claim. After the Plaintiffs appealed, the Defendant sought a security for costs against the Plaintiffs, who were non-Ontario residents from Ecuador. The Plaintiffs argued that security for costs should not be ordered because of, among other reasons, the unique nature of a recognition and enforcement action. The Plaintiffs relied on the Supreme Court of Canada decision on jurisdiction in the same action: Chevron Corp v. Yaiguaje, 2015 SCC 42, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 69. The Plaintiffs argued that the Supreme Court’s decision required courts to treat recognition and enforcement cases in a different manner than first instance actions. The Court of Appeal confirmed that courts should take a “generous” approach in finding jurisdiction in recognition and enforcement actions. … Read More
Court of Appeal Confirms Retrospective Application of Amendments to Prejudgment Interest, Statutory Deductible and Costs Considerations
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released the much anticipated decision in Cobb v. Long Estate, 2017 ONCA 717, which addressed the issue of whether legislative amendments in 2015 to prejudgment interest on non-pecuniary damages, statutory deductible and costs considerations apply retrospectively in motor vehicle accident litigation. Ever since Gilbertson Davis LLP’s blog post in November 2014, judges in the Superior Court of Justice and Divisional Court have made divergent rulings on this issue including retrospective application, prospective application and relying on their discretion for something in between. This appellate decision provides much needed guidance and clarity to the claimants, counsel and insurance companies in tort actions involving motor vehicle accidents. Although it is unknown at this time whether the Plaintiff intends to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, it is safe to assume that will be the case given the significance of this decision. Prejudgment Interest for Non-Pecuniary Damages On January 1, 2015, the Insurance Act was amended to change the prejudgment interest for non-pecuniary damages from 5% … Read More
Andrew Ottaway provides commentary to Global News about online defamation
Andrew Ottaway was asked to comment about online defamation and the potential risks of posting material online. See the video here. The lawyers at Gilbertson Davis have experience with libel and slander claims, including online defamation. Please contact us for an initial consultation.
New Measures of Ontario’s Fair Housing Plan Take Effect Today
On April 20, 2017, Ontario’s Fair Housing Plan was announced by the current Ontario government in an attempt to cool the housing market and make housing more affordable, particularly in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). It has been widely reported that the average purchase price for all types of homes in the GTA has dropped significantly since the announcement. Most of the attention on the housing affordability plan has been focused on the 15 percent Non-Resident Speculation Tax (NRST) imposed on the purchase or acquisition of an interest in residential real estate by a foreign individual, foreign corporation or a taxable trustee. The NRST only applies to residential real estate, containing one to six single family residences, located in the region around Toronto known as the Greater Golden Horseshoe which includes Barrie, Brant, Dufferin, Durham, Guelph, Haldimand, Halton, Hamilton, Kawartha Lakes, Niagara, Northumberland, Peel, Peterborough, Simcoe, Toronto, Waterloo, Wellington and York. There are certain exemptions and rebates to the NRST available including circumstances where: (a) the foreign individual jointly purchases the property with a … Read More
Andrew Ottaway Writes Article for JUST Magazine on Online Dispute Resolution
Andrew Ottaway published an article in JUST Magazine on the recent phenomenon of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), and its likely effects on the Ontario justice system: “ODR matters because it is just one part of a greater trend towards taking litigation online.” The full article is available here.
Court of Appeal Provides Guidance on Interpretation of Success Fee Contract
In RBC Dominion Securities Inc. v. Crew Gold Corporation, 2017 ONCA 648, the Plaintiffs (“RBC”) sued the Defendant (“Crew”) for a success fee (the “Success Fee,”) that RBC alleged it was owed under an agreement for the provision of investment banking services (the “Agreement”). The Agreement provided, among other things, that RBC was entitled to the Success Fee “if a Transaction [was] completed involving any party, whether or not solicited by RBC, pursuant to an agreement to effect or otherwise complete a Transaction entered into during the term of its engagement […]”. RBC provided certain services under the Agreement. During the course of the Agreement, Crew was subject to a takeover. The takeover was not anticipated by either party. RBC was not involved in the takeover transaction. The issue at trial was whether RBC was entitled to the Success Fee for its services. The trial judge found that the … Read More
Court Awards Damages to Defendant in Defamation Case
In United Soils Management Inc. v. Mohammed, 2017 ONSC 4450, the Plaintiff operated a gravel pit in the municipality of Whitchurch-Stouffville. The municipal council voted to allow the Plaintiff to deposit fill onto certain sites. The Defendant was a member of the community, who was concerned about contamination from the deposits. The Defendant posted on the internet regarding her concerns. The Plaintiff demanded that the Defendant cease posting and apologize. In response, the Defendant posted a retraction and apology. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff commenced a claim against the Defendant claiming damages for defamation. The Defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action under section 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, a provision resulting from the Anti-SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation) legislation. Section 137.1(3) requires the Court to dismiss claims where the Defendant proves that the proceeding arises from “expression” related to “a matter of public interest”, subject … Read More
Court of Appeal Confirms Defamation Notice Periods Apply to Online Newspapers
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released its decision in John v. Ballingall, et al, 2017 ONCA 579, which confirmed that online versions of newspapers are subject to the protections found in Ontario’s Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12 (the “Act”). The Act provides for certain notice and limitation periods, which if not met, may act as a bar for any future defamation actions. Specifically, Section 5(1) of the Act provides that no action for libel in a “newspaper” or “broadcast” lies unless the plaintiff has, within six weeks after the alleged libel has come to the plaintiff’s knowledge, given the defendant notice in writing of the specific matter complained of. Section 6 of the Act provides that an action for libel in a “newspaper” or “broadcast” shall be commenced within three months after the libel has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff. In this decision, the plaintiff (a rapper known as Avalanche the Architect) commenced an action for libel against the Toronto Star because … Read More
Supreme Court Provides Guidance on Oppression Remedy
In Wilson v. Alharayeri, 2017 SCC 39, The Plaintiff, Alharayeri, was the president, CEO and a shareholder and a director of the subject Corporation. The subject corporation was incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”). In addition to common shares, the Defendant held convertible A and B preferred shares issued only to him as performance-based incentives. The A and B shares were convertible upon the corporation meeting certain performance targets in 2007. The Plaintiff held convertible C preferred shares, issued to him as an incentive for finding financing. The C shares were convertible into common shares upon the Corporation meeting a specific financial target. In early 2007, the Defendant, Wilson, began negotiating a merger with Company M to address the Corporation’s cash flow issues. At the same time, the Defendant arranged to sell some of his common shares to Company M as a result of personal financial difficulties. The Corporation’s Board … Read More
Ontario Court Identifies New Presumptive Connecting Factor in Establishing Jurisdiction
In Arend v Boehm, 2017 ONSC 3424, the three Applicants in a corporate dispute applied for orders pursuant to the oppression remedy (section 248) of the Ontario Business Corporations Act in respect of BitRush, an Ontario company. The Judge noted that BitRush’s business was “reflective of the worldwide impact of business connected with the internet.” The international character of BitRush’s business was reflected in the identity of the Respondents, who were: 1) BitRush’s CEO, an Austrian resident; 2) a former BitRush board member, also an Austrian resident; 3) BitRush’s majority shareholder, a UK company; and 4) another Austrian resident. The Applicants sought: 1) a declaration that the Respondent CEO has acted oppressively, in breach of his fiduciary duty to BitRush; 2) an order transferring shares of BitRush from the Respondent UK company to certain other stakeholders; and 3) an order that the Respondent UK company’s remaining shares in BitRush be … Read More
Court of Appeal Considers Law Applicable to Bifurcation of Disputes between Court and Arbitration
In Wellman v. TELUS Communications Company, 2017 ONCA 433, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently considered the law applicable to determining whether to bifurcate a dispute between court proceedings and arbitration. In Wellman v. TELUS, the plaintiffs consisted of consumers and businesses. The plaintiffs commenced a class action against the defendant, Telus, regarding alleged overbilling. The Telus contact contained an arbitration clause. Telus acknowledged that the arbitration clause was not binding on the consumer plaintiffs (due to the Consumer Protection Act, 2002). But Telus’s position was the the business plaintiffs were bound by the arbitration clause. Telus brought a motion to stay the business plaintiffs’ class action in favour of arbitration. Telus relied upon, among other things, section 7(5) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, which provides for a partial stay of court proceedings to be granted where an arbitration agreement deals with only some of the matters in respect … Read More
Possible Changes to Choice of Court Agreements and Recognition of Foreign Judgments
Ontario recently enacted the International Choice of Court Agreements Convention Act, 2017, which will give effect to the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (the “Hague Convention”) in Ontario once Canada ratifies the Hague Convention. (Canada has not yet signed or ratified the Hague Convention. It is not yet known when Canada will ratify the Hague Convention. The Uniform Law Conference of Canada adopted a model implementation statute in 2010, suggesting that Canada may sign and ratify the Hague Convention.) In preparation for ratification, Ontario businesses should be aware of the Hague Convention’s key features, including: • where parties of member States have expressly agreed to a court in their contract, the court selected by parties must act in every case as long as the choice of court agreement is valid. The agreed Court does not have discretion (on forum non conveniens or other grounds) to decline jurisdiction in favour of courts of another State. • any court … Read More
International Sale of Goods – the Law Applicable in Ontario
Many Ontario businesses buy and sell goods from foreign companies. However, few Ontario businesses are aware that different laws apply to international purchases and sales of goods. For purchases and sales of goods between Ontario companies, the Ontario Sale of Goods Act will typically apply. However, for purchases and sales of goods between Ontario and foreign companies, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (the “CISG”) will typically apply. The CISG is “Ontario law”. It is enacted in Ontario by the International Sales Conventions Act. There are a number of key differences between the Ontario Sale of Goods Act and the CISG. One of the most notable is the obligation on the buyer to inspect goods (article 38) and give notice of any non-conformity (article 39). The inspection obligation imposed by article 38 can have significant consequences: if the buyer fails to detect a lack of conformity … Read More
Court of Appeal Reiterates Importance of Pleading Particulars of Fraud
In Midland Resources Holding Limited v. Shtaif, 2017 ONCA 320, the trial judge found the appellants liable to a company’s shareholders for fraudulent misrepresentations before and after an initial public offering (IPO). On appeal, the appellants argued that the trial judge erred in finding liability based on the IPO-related statements because the respondents did not plead or argue at trial that such statements amounted to fraudulent misrepresentations. The Court of Appeal stated that a pleading of fraud or misrepresentation must set out with careful particularity the elements of the misrepresentation relied upon, including: the alleged misrepresentation itself; when, where, how, by whom and to whom it was made; its falsity; the inducement; the intention that the plaintiff should rely upon it; the alteration by the plaintiff of his or her position relying on the misrepresentation; the resulting loss or damage to the plaintiff; and if deceit is alleged, an allegation … Read More
The Low-Down on PIPEDA Requests in Personal Injury Cases
Seemingly out of nowhere, institutional litigants, insurers and the third-party vendors they retain to support their obligations in responding to claims have been inundated with requests for disclosure on pain of complaints or actions to collect damages under the Canadian federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). In some instances, parties or their lawyers directly approach non-parties such as medical experts and private investigation companies and demand production of documents separately from any disclosure procedures in the claims or law suits. It is hard to point to any single rationale for employing the resort to the federal privacy legislation, except that obtaining access to personal information is probably not one of them. Traditionally, a party to a personal injury law suit would, through his or her lawyer, be the conduit for information in health records, employment files and other personal data. The defendant or respondent would be the … Read More
Court Considers When Jurisdiction May be Found Against Sole Officer And Director of Foreign Corporation
In Olympique CMCT Inc. v Les Industries Pancor Limitée, 2017 ONSC 1929, the Plaintiff, Olympique, was a Quebec company. Olympique obtained default judgment in a Quebec action against the Defendants Pancor, an insolvent Ontario company, and Panarese, Pancor’s sole officer and director. Olympique brought an action in Ontario seeking recognition and enforcement of the Quebec judgment against Panarese in Ontario. Panarese argued that Ontario should not enforce the Quebec judgment because, among other reasons, the Quebec Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the Quebec judgment against him. Panarese lived in Ontario. Pancor was primarily located in Ontario. However, the Court stated that it was sufficient that Quebec had a real and substantial connection with the subject matter of the action, even if it had no connection with Panarese. The Court found that Panarese signed purchase orders which were transmitted to Olympique in Quebec, meaning that the contracts between Pancor and … Read More