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
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”
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
A Cautionary Tale in Contract Interpretation: ID Inc. v. Toronto Wholesale Produce Association, 2025 ONCA 22
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently issued a significant decision in ID Inc. v. Toronto Wholesale Produce Association, 2025 ONCA 22, addressing fundamental principles of contract interpretation. The Plaintiff/Respondent, a company specializing in outdoor advertising opportunities, proposed transforming a traditional billboard at the Ontario Food Terminal (“OFT”) into a lucrative digital sign. The Plaintiff/Respondent entered into a Sale and Maintenance Agreement (“SMA”) with the Defendant/Appellant, which required the Plaintiff/Respondent to secure a necessary permit for transforming the billboard within 360 days (the “Permit”). While the Plaintiff began the Permit process, the Defendant/Appellant directed it to halt municipal efforts and explore a provincial approval path. This shift, driven by legal opinions suggesting the OFT Board might be exempt from municipal regulations, ultimately led to the SMA’s expiration without the Permit being acquired. The Defendant/Appellant later awarded the digital sign project to another company, sparking the within litigation. Key Issues on Appeal … 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
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
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
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
Derivative Actions and Limited Partnerships: Binscarth Holdings LP v. Anthony et al.
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
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