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
Supreme Court Considers Oppression Remedy
In Mennillo v. Intramodal inc., 2016 SCC 51, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the application of the oppression remedy under the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”), which applies to federally incorporated companies. (The Ontario Business Corporations Act, which applies to Ontario incorporated companies, also contains an oppression remedy). The case involved a private corporation with originally two shareholders. There was no shareholders’ agreement. The Court described the parties’ dealings as being “marked by extreme informality”. One of the two shareholders, Mennillo, eventually resigned as officer and director of the company by providing a notice of resignation. The notice did not address his status as a shareholder. There was conflicting evidence from the parties about whether Mennillo intended to cease being a shareholder. Ultimately, the trial judge accepted that Mennillo’s withdrawal from the company included his intention to no longer guarantee the company’s debts. The trial judge found that Mennillo agreed … Read More
Family Business Dispute, Start Up Company Dispute, and Closely-Held Company Litigation
We have experience acting for, advising and representing those in closely-held company litigation, both arising from family business disputes and from start-up company disputes. Family Business Disputes Many businesses in Canada are family businesses or have evolved from family businesses. Family businesses present many unique challenges as they grow, as key members of the company or partnership leave the family business, or when personal relationships of the key members of the family business change or deteriorate. One of the most common differences between a family business and other established businesses, whether or not a shareholders’ agreement, partnership agreement and other legal documentation was used in the formation of the family business, is the informality in operation of the family business, including the often ignored distinction in fact between employees, shareholders, or partners – since family members take on multiple roles. Please see our webpage on Family and Closely Held Business Disputes. Start Up Company … Read More
Partnership Disputes & Joint Venture Litigation
Our lawyers have acted in Ontario and other jurisdictions for partners in small and mid-sized partnerships, and limited liability partnerships (LLPs) and contractual parties and partners in joint ventures. Partnership Disputes Partnership is a relationship between persons carrying on a business in common with a view to profit, which is not a corporation. It is one of the most commonly used business associations for small and medium-sized business. A partnership can be created at law and the Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.5 sets out rules for determining existence of partnership, though commonly the parties enter into a partnership agreement. Joint Venture – Is it a Partnership? Joint ventures are often established to synergize what each member of the joint venture can add to the consortium. Sometimes a joint venture is the structure chosen because those members engaged in the joint venture are located in different jurisdictions. While invariably created by contractual agreement, some … Read More
Former Employee Ordered to Transfer Social Media Accounts in Trade-Mark and Copyright Infringement Case
The Federal Court decision in Thoi Bao Inc. v. 1913075 Ontario Limited involved a former employee of the plaintiff developing and operating a competing online news website that infringed on the plaintiff’s trade-marks and copyrighted content. The plaintiff, Thoi Bao, is a well-known Vietnamese language news company that provides news services throughout Canada in a variety of formats including newspapers, radio, television and online. The company’s website, www.thoibao.com, provides online content such as news, editorials, opinions, links to other news agency services, self-produced television shows and newscasts. The former employee registered the domain name, www. thoibaotv.com, without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff and began offering online news services in Canada in the Vietnamese language. The former employee did not appear to make any effort to conceal his activities because the infringing website prominently used TBTV Online as the website title, streamed webcasts that were produced by the plaintiff, and incorporated … Read More
Court of Appeal Emphasizes Confidence in Fact Finding on the Record for Summary Judgment
In Meehan v Good, 2017 ONCA 103, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs of the dismissal of their claims by summary judgment against their former lawyer, Mr. Cardill. The motion judge had determined that the subject retainer was only with respect to assessment of the accounts of their earlier former lawyer, Mr. Good, and not any possible negligence action against Mr. Good, and thus there was no genuine issue whether Mr. Cardill owed the plaintiffs a duty of care to advise them about the limitation period in relation to a possible negligence action against Mr. Good. The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge’s analysis focused narrowly on the written retainer agreement, and not, as is required when determining if a lawyer owes a duty of care to a client, examining all the surrounding circumstances that define the lawyer and client relationship, when, as was pleaded here that … Read More
Court of Appeal Provides Guidance On Pleading Defamation
In The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. v. Veritas Investment Research Corporation, the parties were involved in the venture capital industry. The plaintiff company alleged that the defendants had attempted to damage the plaintiff with a “short selling” strategy. The plaintiff claimed damages for conspiracy to injure, intentional interference with economic relations, and defamation. As part of the defamation claim, the plaintiff alleged that defamatory material was published by one of the defendants to known individuals on known dates as well as to to unknown people on unknown dates. The defendants brought a motion to strike the allegations of unknown publication, arguing that it was impermissible in a defamation claim to plead publication to unknown people on unknown dates. The motion judge agreed, and ordered that specific allegation be struck out. On appeal, the Court of Appeal disagreed. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that defamation claims are typically held to … Read More
Federal Court Restricts Republication of Canadian Legal Decisions Under PIPEDA
In the recent decision of A.T. v. Globe24h.com, the Federal Court held that the respondent’s re-hosting of publically available Canadian legal decisions ran afoul of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act‘s (PIPEDA’s) restriction on the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information without consent, prioritizing the personal information of individuals against the broad open court principle that would otherwise warrant the unrestricted publication of judicial decisions. The respondent operated a website out of Romania which focused on re-publishing judicial decisions which are already publically available through online services such as CanLII. The primary difference between the respondent and services like CanLII was that the respondent’s website was indexed such that its content would appear in search results on Google or other search engines, whereas decisions on CanLII are not indexed and would not appear on any search engine. Any person who collects, uses, or discloses personal information in respect of a … Read More
Court of Appeal Upholds Finding Of Jurisdiction Based on Business Activities in Ontario
In Stuart Budd & Sons Limited v. IFS Vehicle Distributors ULC, 2016 ONCA 977, the plaintiff/respondents were eight car dealerships. Four of the eight were located outside of Ontario. The defendant/appellants were: IFS Vehicle Distributors ULC (“IFS”), a British Columbia corporation; International Fleet Sales Inc. (“International”), a California corporation, an affiliate of IFS which supplied parts and accessories to IFS; and two individuals who were officers of both IFS and International, and who resided outside of Ontario. The defendants brought a motion to stay the action, arguing that the out-of-province plaintiffs could not be part of the action, and could not sue the defendants in Ontario. However, the motion judge found that the claim was presumptively connected to Ontario based on one of the factors set out by the Supreme Court in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda: that the defendant carried on business within the jurisdiction. The motion judge found that … Read More