In the arbitration preceding the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“OSCJ”) decision, Optiva Inc. v, Tbaytel, 2021 ONSC 2929 (CanLII), the respondent successfully brought a motion for summary judgment before a sole arbitrator. The applicant then appealed the arbitrator’s award to the OSCJ, arguing, among other things, that the arbitrator could not, absent consent of the applicant, proceed by way of summary judgment. The OSCJ disagreed with the respondent’s position, instead affirming that the “arbitrator could elect to proceed by summary judgment absent the consent of [the applicant]”. The court cited, as authority for its conclusion, section 20(1) of the Arbitration Act, which states: 20 (1) The arbitral tribunal may determine the procedure to be followed in the arbitration, in accordance with this Act. The OSCJ opined that “summary judgment should be available to the parties in an arbitration subject to the requirement” that the process: Allows the arbitrator to … Read More
Recognition of Foreign Judgments – Supreme Court Leaves Determination of Enforceability of “Ricochet Judgments” for another day – Update on Previous Blog
This is an update on our blog, Recognition of Foreign Judgments – The Ontario Courts will not Recognize Enforcement Orders (a.k.a. “Ricochet Judgments”), regarding the Superior Court decision in H.M.B. Holdings Ltd. v. Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda, 2021 ONSC 2307 (CanLII). That decision has been appealed up to the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”), which has now also rendered its decision. In dismissing the appeal, the SCC agreed with the application judge, and with the Court of Appeal, that Ontario’s Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act (the “Act”) bars the plaintiff (appellant) from registering a default judgment that it obtained in British Columbia to enforce a judgment granted by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The SCC advised that the Act only applies to (1) reciprocating jurisdictions, such as British Columbia, and (2) judgments or orders of a court in a civil proceeding where a sum of money … Read More
Summary Judgment – Emerging Burdens of the Summary Judgment Motion Judge
Summary Judgment – Emerging Burdens of the Summary Judgment Motion Judge[i] David Alderson[ii], Senior Counsel – Commercial Litigation, at Gilbertson Davis LLP, co-counsel for the 13 plaintiffs (one of which was Mauldin), that responded to the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin[iii], that responded below to the appeal in the Ontario Court of Appeal, and that obtained summary judgment in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, being the judgment which was appealed, has written two chapters of the Annual Review of Civil Litigation[iv], which if read together comprise a seven year survey of the appellate cases across Canada considering Hryniak and summary judgment. The chapter entitled Sentinels of the Hryniak Culture Shift: Four Years On[v], included in the Annual Review of Civil Litigation 2018[vi] covers appellate cases for the first four years following the Supreme Court of Canada decision. The second chapter Emerging Burdens of the Summary Judgment Motion … Read More
Breach of Agreement of Purchase and Sale – What are Your Options?
The Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) in Ching v. Pier 27 Toronto Inc., 2021 ONCA 551 (CanLII), recently outlined the options an innocent party to an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) has upon the other party breaching (i.e. repudiating) the APS. General Principles Repudiation is the refusal of one party to an APS to abide by the terms of the APS. Repudiation by one party does not in itself result in the termination of the APS. Rather, repudiation provides the innocent party (i.e. the non-repudiating party) to the APS with the following choices: Accept the repudiation (i.e. disaffirm the APS); or Treat the APS as subsisting (i.e. affirm the APS). The innocent party generally has a reasonable period of time to choose whether to disaffirm or affirm the APS. However, waiting too long may result in a court determining that the APS has been affirmed. During this reasonable waiting … Read More
Recognition of Foreign Judgments – The Ontario Courts will not Recognize Enforcement Orders (a.k.a. “Ricochet Judgments”)
In H.M.B. Holdings Ltd. v. Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda, 2021 ONSC 2307, on a summary judgment motion, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“OSCJ”) found that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and subsequently dismissed the plaintiff’s action (commenced on May 6, 2019) for the recognition of a money judgment that it obtained against the defendant in British Columbia in 2017 (“BC Judgment”). The BC Judgment was a default judgment recognizing and enforcing a judgment of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom which the plaintiff obtained in 2014 (“Privy Council Judgment”). The defendant argued that: The plaintiff was attempting to avoid seeking recognition and enforcement of the original Privy Council Judgment in Ontario by seeking to recognize and enforce the derivative BC Judgment instead; The plaintiff would be out of time to seek recognition of the Privy Council Judgment in Ontario (because of the expiry … Read More
Breach of Contract Lawyers – Can Contracts that do not Specify Duration or that Lack a Termination Clause be Terminated Unilaterally?
Ontario’s Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) in Conseil Scolaire Catholique Franco-Nord v. Nipissing, 2021 ONCA 544 opined on how contracts that do not specify a termination date or a procedure for termination ought to be interpreted. The ONCA grappled with the question of whether to treat a contract that was silent on the issue of termination as either (1) a perpetual contract, that does not end, or (2) a contract of indefinite duration, into which the court can imply a provision allowing for unliteral termination upon reasonable notice. Historical Approach The ONCA advised that courts used to presume that contracts which were indefinite in time were perpetual in nature. However, this approach was subsequently disregarded, and courts began to presume a right to terminate an indefinite contract by the provision of reasonable notice. New Approach The ONCA advised that even more recently, however, a contextual, fact-specific, approach has been favoured by … Read More
Ontario’s Commercial Mediation Act and Institutional Mediation Rules
Further to our blogs (Part I, Part II, and Part III) on Ontario’s Commercial Mediation Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c. 16, Sched. 3 (the “Act”), where we provided an outline of the various sections of the Act, this blog endeavours to neutrally highlight some, but not all, of the major differences between the Act and some of the popular institutional mediation rules. In particular, we contrast the Act with the following institutional mediation rules: ADRIC National Mediation Rules, ICC Mediation Rules, WIPO Mediation Rules, and LCIA Mediation Rules (collectively the “Rules”). This blog does not attempt to outline any of the similarities between the Act and the Rules, though some similarities may surface within the blog nonetheless. Rather, this blog serves only to impartially outline differences between the Act and the Rules. Application The Act applies automatically to any mediation of a commercial dispute, subject to a number of exceptions … Read More
Purchaser Breached Agreement of Purchase and Sale? Damages Awards and Importance of Mitigation
In the Court of Appeal’s (“ONCA”) recent decision Tribute (Springwater) Limited v. Atif, 2021 ONCA 463 (CanLII) the ONCA clarifies the law regarding damages and mitigation in cases involving aborted real estate transactions. This decision involves an appeal from a summary judgment granting the plaintiff seller damages for the defendant purchaser’s failure to close a residential real estate transaction. Damages The ONCA advises that damages in a failed real estate transaction are generally determined “based on the difference between the agreed sale price under the parties’ agreement of purchase and sale and the market value of the property at the date set for closing”. Depending on context, a court may choose a different date, other than the date for closing. There may also be other damages, such as carrying costs and other expenses incurred by the plaintiff while holding the property for a subsequent sale. Mitigation The ONCA states that … Read More
Contract Lawyers – The Duty of Good Faith – Update on Bhasin v Hrynew
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) recently released its decision in Wastech Services Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, 2021 SCC 7 (CanLII) which clarifies the operation of the duty to exercise contractual discretion in good faith described in the seminal case, Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71 (CanLII), [2014] 3 SCR 494. The SCC confirms that where a party exercises a discretionary power under a contract, it must do so in good faith (meaning that parties must exercise their contractual duties honestly, reasonably, and not capriciously or arbitrarily). If a party violates the duty of good faith, the contract is breached. The SCC opined that the following question must be asked when deciding if a party breached the duty of good faith: Was the exercise of contractual discretion unconnected to the purpose for which the contract granted discretion? If the answer is yes, then the party has … Read More
Defamation Law – What is a “Broadcast” or “Newspaper” under the Libel and Slander Act?
We write further to our blog which discussed the short deadlines under Ontario’s Libel and Slander Act (“Act”) that apply to defamatory content which is considered a “broadcast” or “newspaper”[1]. The Act states that: No action for libel in a newspaper or in a broadcast lies unless the plaintiff has, within six weeks after the alleged libel has come to the plaintiff’s knowledge, given to the defendant notice in writing, specifying the matter complained of, which shall be served in the same manner as a statement of claim or by delivering it to a grown-up person at the chief office of the defendant. An action for a libel in a newspaper or in a broadcast shall be commenced within three months after the libel has come to the knowledge of the person defamed, but, where such an action is brought within that period, the action may include a claim for … Read More
Defamation Lawyers and the Inference of Publication
In our blog Toronto Defamation Lawyers – Libel and Slander Law in Ontario, we suggest that in order to be successful on a defamation claim, one would have to prove that the allegedly defamatory publication was “published”, among other things. The court of appeal has provided some clarity on what it means to “publish” defamatory content. In Zoutman v. Graham, 2020 ONCA 767 (CanLII), the court contends on an appeal from a summary judgment motion, that a defamation claim requires proof that the “words were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff”. On the original summary judgment motion, the motions judge acknowledged that there was no evidence that the allegedly defamatory postings were viewed by anyone other than the parties and their lawyers. However, the motions judge drew an “inference of publication” from the totality of the circumstances. In drawing the inference of publication, the motions judge … Read More
China International Arbitration Award Enforced by Ontario Court
Tianjin v. Xu, 2019 ONSC 628 (CanLII) involved an application under the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 2, Sch 5 (the “Act”) for an order recognizing and making enforceable in Ontario an arbitral award of the Chinese International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”). Respondent’s Defences The respondent argued that the arbitration award should not be enforced in Ontario because: Service: The respondent did not receive notice of the arbitral proceeding or the appointment of arbitrators; and Jurisdiction: The Ontario Superior Court of Justice did not have jurisdiction to enforce the arbitral award because the arbitration was not an “international commercial arbitration”. Service The court found that there is no requirement that service of notice of the arbitral proceedings or of appointment of arbitrators be effected in accordance with the CIETAC Rules. Rather, the court opined that the respondent was given “proper notice” of the proceedings and … Read More
Internet Harassment: New Tort Recognized in Ontario
Following up on our previous blog in which we advise that the Ontario Court of Appeal decided that there is no common law tort of harassment, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has now recognized the new tort of online harassment. In the recent decision, Caplan v. Atas, 2021 ONSC 670 (CanLII), the court recognized the inadequacies in the current legal system’s responses to internet defamation and harassment matters. The court opines that while defamation law and freedom of speech have created a balance in society which promotes both free democratic debate and protection of one’s reputation simultaneously, the internet has “cast that balance into disarray”. Recognition of the New Tort of Harassment The difficulty in the cases before the court was that the defendant was not deterred from further egregious conduct even in the face of multiple severe consequences. The defendant was also impecunious, so compensation was not a … Read More
B.C. Court Claims Jurisdiction over International Online Defamation Case
This blog post is further to our blog on the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) decision in Haaretz.com v. Goldhar, 2018 SCC 28 (CanLII) (“Haaretz”) wherein the SCC opined that Israel was a more convenient forum for an online defamation claim brought by the plaintiff in Ontario (even though the SCC recognized that Ontario had jurisdiction over the matter). The SCC considered a number of factors in its decision (all outlined in our blog). In the recent Supreme Court of British Columbia (“BCSC”) decision, Giustra v Twitter, Inc., 2021 BCSC 54 (CanLII) (“Giustra”), the BCSC confirmed that even where jurisdiction is found, a court can decline to exercise its jurisdiction under the principle that its court is not the most convenient forum for the hearing of the dispute (largely following the tenets laid out in Haaretz). The court in Giustra cited Haaretz in pointing out that the applicable law in … Read More
It’s not all about Intent! – Court of Appeal Confirms Test for Civil Conspiracy
In the recent decision Mughal v. Bama Inc., 2020 ONCA 704 (CanLII), the Court of Appeal upheld a lower court decision in an action alleging civil conspiracy, among other things. The underlying action involved a plaintiff seeking the return of his investment in a corporation. On appeal, it was alleged that the trial judge applied the wrong legal test for and misapprehended the evidence to find commission of the tort of conspiracy to injure. The appellate court concluded that the trial judge applied the correct test for establishing civil conspiracy to injure as follows: Whether the means used by the defendants are lawful or unlawful, the predominant purpose of the defendants’ conduct is to cause injury to the plaintiff; or, Where the conduct of the defendants is unlawful, the conduct is directed towards the plaintiff (alone or together with others), and the defendants should know in the circumstances that injury … Read More
Do it, Don’t Just Say it! Court of Appeal refuses to Rule on Arbitration Clause
On a recent motion before the Court of Appeal in Paulpillai Estate v. Yusuf, 2020 ONCA 655 (CanLII), Jamal J.A. clarifies that a party needs to bring a motion if it wants the proceeding to be referred to arbitration. In the underlying decision, Paulpillai v. Yusuf, 2020 ONSC 851 (CanLII), the motion judge noted that the responding parties “have maintained in their affidavit evidence that the matter should have proceeded by way of arbitration, but at no time did they bring a motion seeking to stay these proceedings or to compel the Applicants to proceed by way of arbitration”. Accordingly, the motion judge found that the responding parties have waived their right to seek to have the issues in the action determined by way of arbitration. In agreement with the motion judge, Jamal J.A., writing for the Court of Appeal, clarifies that, even though (a) there was an arbitration clause … Read More
Can The Condo Corporation Register A Lien On My Condo Unit?
A recent Divisional Court decision, Amlani v. YCC 473, 2020 ONSC 5090, confirmed that there are two separate ways to register a condo lien depending on whether the amount is related to common expenses (or “condo fees”), or related to compliance and enforcement expenses. A condo lien may be registered without a court order when the condo corporation seeks to recover unpaid condo fees. However, condo corporations are generally required to obtain a court order to register a lien when seeking to recover legal fees and expenses incurred for compliance and enforcement matters. Background The condo owner, a smoker for 56 years, purchased the unit after confirming that smoking was allowed in the building. A few years later, the neighbour complained about the smell of smoke but the issue was resolved after the condo corporation sealed certain openings at its own cost. When new complaints about the smell of smoke … Read More