Protecting your Business Name and Brand Identity: Court Grants Permanent Injunction in Edgewater Park Lodge Inc. v. Cadman et al., 2025 ONSC 1295

Harrison Neill-MorabitoBusiness Disputes, Civil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation0 Comments

The recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Edgewater Park Lodge Inc. v. Cadman et al., 2025 ONSC 1295 sheds light on key issues related to business name registration, passing off, and injunctive relief. In Edgewater Park Lodge, the applicant successfully sought a permanent injunction against the respondents for their use of the business name “Red Canoe Family Restaurant,” which the court found to be deceptively similar to the applicant’s existing “Red Canoe Restaurant.” The appellant, operating since 2018, had an established reputation and goodwill in its restaurant business, particularly under the name “Red Canoe Restaurant.” The respondents registered and operated “Red Canoe Family Restaurant” in 2023 within the same regional district. The appellant sought relief under the Business Name Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.17 (“BNA”), arguing that the respondents’ business name was misleading and likely to cause confusion among consumers. The applicant also sought compensation under … Read More

Contractual Duties, Good Faith, and Improper Solicitation of Patients: Court of Appeal for Ontario Upholds Lower Court’s Decision in Coscarella Dentistry Professional Corporation v. Harvey, 2025 ONCA 118

Harrison Neill-MorabitoCivil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Non-Compete, Non-Solicitation Agreement, Non-Solicitation Clause0 Comments

In the case of Coscarella Dentistry Professional Corporation v. Harvey, 2025 ONCA 118, two dentists entered into an oral agreement where one served as an independent contractor at the other’s dental practice located in Windsor, Ontario. In 2018, the plaintiff/appellant’s son took over the clinic. Concurrently, the defendant/respondent opted to relocate his practice to a nearby site. Prior to his departure, he accessed patient records of those he had treated and sent out letters informing them of his new office location. The appellants contended that this constituted improper solicitation, conversion, and a breach of confidentiality. The trial judge decided in favor of the defendant/respondent, rejecting the claims made against him. During the appeal, the appellants contended that the trial judge misinterpreted the case by emphasizing patient autonomy over contractual responsibilities. They further argued that the trial judge incorrectly determined that the accessed information was not confidential and did not adequately … Read More

Contractual Intent in Real Estate Disputes: Court of Appeal for Ontario finds binding agreement in VanderMolen Homes Inc. v. Mani, 2025 ONCA 45

Harrison Neill-MorabitoCivil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation, Real Estate Litigation0 Comments

In the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in VanderMolen Homes Inc. v. Mani, 2025 ONCA 45, the appellants, a couple seeking to purchase a newly constructed home in Exeter, Ontario, entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with the respondent on January 13, 2022. The agreement was conditional, with a second deposit required upon removal of all conditions by January 20, 2022. The appellants requested an extension of the condition fulfillment deadline to January 26, 2022, with their offer set to expire at 11:59 p.m. on January 21, 2022. However, the respondent accepted this extension one day late, on January 22, 2022. Despite this, the appellants signed a waiver of conditions and provided the second deposit on January 26, 2022. Subsequent communications between the parties were minimal, with the appellants later alleging that they had assumed the deal was not proceeding. On August 17, 2022, just weeks before … Read More

Surrounding Circumstances of Contracts – When Are They Relevant? Ontario Superior Court of Justice Weighs In

Tyler O’HenlyCivil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes0 Comments

In Wei v. Ye-Hang Canada (EH-C) Technology & Services Inc., 2025 ONSC 546,  The Ontario Superior Court of Justice engaged with a relatively nuanced evidentiary principle in interpreting a contract’s terms: the circumstances surrounding a contract, and when they can be admitted as evidence to interpret a contract’s language. The defendant offered the plaintiff an investment opportunity in 2022. The defendant claimed her company was the exclusive agent in Canada for a well-known manufacturer of drone technology, which is publicly traded in the United States. The parties entered an agreement where the plaintiff would fund the acquisition of drones by an affiliate corporation of the defendant’s company, and the plaintiff would receive 5% of the affiliate’s shares in exchange for her investment. The plaintiff advanced over $700,000 pursuant to the agreement. The defendant signed a loan receipt wherein she acknowledged the plaintiff’s investment, and an obligation to pay back the … Read More

Consideration in Contracts: Ontario Court of Appeal Offers Something for Parties to “Consider”

Tyler O’HenlyCivil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes0 Comments

In Brant Securities Limited v. Goss, 2025 ONCA 8, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed some key principles surrounding a vital component of the legal contract: the exchange of valid consideration. The appellant was a financial advisor who joined an investment brokerage in 2013. As part of his employment agreement, the appellant received a “recruitment bonus” which took the form of an interest-free loan from the brokerage to finance the appellant’s purchase of shares in its parent company. The note was payable back in ten equal annual installments, but each installment would be waived and credited against the loan’s balance if the appellant met certain performance metrics. Essentially – the “recruitment bonus” was a loan forgiveness program for the appellant’s share purchase financing. The appellant met his performance metrics in the first two years of the loan, but the credits were never awarded by the brokerage. When the brokerage was … Read More

Rulings on Preliminary Questions in Arbitrations: Ontario Court of Appeal Discusses Appeal Procedure

Tyler O’HenlyAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Appeals, Arbitration, Business Disputes, Civil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Contract Disputes0 Comments

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

Harrison Neill-MorabitoCivil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation, Finance Litigation, Real Estate Litigation0 Comments

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

The Role of Summary Judgment in Real Estate Disputes: Reid v. Abass, 2024 ONSC 7083

Harrison Neill-MorabitoCivil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation, Real Estate Litigation0 Comments

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

Harrison Neill-MorabitoCivil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Law, Construction Litigation, Contract Disputes0 Comments

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

Harrison Neill-MorabitoCivil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Real Estate Litigation0 Comments

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

Tyler O’HenlyCivil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Lending, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Debt and Enforcing Judgments, Summary Judgment0 Comments

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.

Tyler O’HenlyAppeals, Appellate Advocacy, Business Disputes, Civil Litigation, Commercial, Injunction & Specific Performance0 Comments

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

Tyler O’HenlyBusiness Disputes, Civil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes0 Comments

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

Derivative Actions and Limited Partnerships: Binscarth Holdings LP v. Anthony et al.

Tyler O’HenlyAppeals, Business Disputes, Business Litigation, Commercial, Commercial Litigation0 Comments

In Binscarth Holdings LP v. Anthony, 2024 ONCA 522, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that, in some circumstances, a limited partner may obtain leave to commence a common law derivative action in the name of a limited partnership.  Derivative actions are typically actions brought on behalf of a corporation for wrongs that are done to it. The action has common law origins and was created to counteract the rule in the seminal case of Foss v. Harbottle that, as a separate legal entity from its shareholders, only a corporation itself possesses a cause of action for wrongs done to it. The derivative action allows a person to bring an action in the name of a corporation against its management for harm they have caused to the company. In modern Canadian corporate law, the derivative action has been codified under Ontario’s Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, and the Canada … Read More

Notice, a Condition Precedent to Coverage – Ontario Court of Appeal says no Relief of Forfeiture for Late Notice of Claim

Harrison Neill-MorabitoCivil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Insurance, Insurance | Reinsurance0 Comments

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

Time is of the Essence – Court-Imposed Deadline for Contractual Performance Upheld by Ontario Court of Appeal

Tyler O’HenlyAppeals, Appellate Advocacy, Civil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Real Estate Litigation0 Comments

In 2533619 Ontario Inc. (Calibrex Development Group) v. Lucadamo, 2024 ONCA 536, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a court-imposed deadline for a party’s performance of its obligations under an agreement of purchase and sale.  The appellant was the purchaser of three residential lots under an Agreement of Purchase and Sale that it had entered into with the respondent vendor in 2017 (the “APS”). The APS included a clause that allowed any deadline in the agreement to be extended or abridged by agreement. The closing of the APS was originally stipulated as a a fixed date, but the parties consented to a new closing date of “30 days following the appellant’s receipt of severance approval for the lots.” Five years elapsed between the amendment date and the appellant’s commencement of its severance application. When the application got underway in 2022, the appellant was told by the respondent that the APS … Read More

Full and Frank Disclosure, Material Misrepresentations, and the availability of Directors’ and Officers’ Liability Coverage

Harrison Neill-MorabitoCivil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation, Insurance, Insurance | Reinsurance0 Comments

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s (the “Court“) recent decision in Davies v AIG Insurance Company of Canada, 2024 ONCA 509 (“Davies“), deals with an insurance coverage dispute related to the defense of a Ponzi scheme fraud claim. Notably, the Court’s decisions underscores the significance of full and frank disclosure by insureds when applying for coverage. In Davies, the subject Applicants acted as the principals of related Ontario real estate development companies (the “Companies”). AIG Insurance Company of Canada (“AIG”) issued directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policies (the “Policies”) to the Companies. As part of this action, the Applicants were named as defendants in two separate lawsuits alleging that they used the Companies to conduct a Ponzi scheme and that the Companies’ alleged real estate developments were funded by millions of dollars in syndicated mortgages (the “Underlying Actions”). Soon after being named as defendants in the Underlying Actions, the Applicants sought … Read More