In the recent Court of Appeal decision of Ontario Securities Commission v. Camerlengo Holdings Inc., 2023 ONCA 93, the Court of Appeal overturned a motion judges decision to strike the Ontario Securities Commission’s (“OSC”) claim made pursuant to s.2 of the Fraudulent Conveyance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F. 19 (“FCA”) due to lack of particularity. The Court of Appeal held that it is not necessary for a creditor to be known to the debtor at the time of a potentially fraudulent conveyance, it is enough that the debtor perceived a risk of claims from a general class of future creditors and conveyed the property with the intention to evade such creditors if they arose. The Facts Fred Camerlengo a retired electrician and the sole director of the Defendant corporation, Camerlengo Holdings Inc. (Holdco), conveyed his interest in the family home to his wife Mirella Camerlengo, a retired teacher, which was … Read More
Entire Agreement Clause Not A Shield To Fraudulent Misrepresentation
In the recent Court of Appeal ruling of 10443204 Canada Inc. v. 2701835 Ontario Inc., 2022 ONCA 745, the Court of Appeal clarified that entire agreement clauses in contracts do not shield any representor or deprive any party to a contract from remedies available for a fraudulent misrepresentation. Background In May of 2019 the appellant Chirag Patel and his corporation 2701835 Ontario Inc. (the appellants) entered into a purchase agreement (the “APS”) with the respondent 10443204 Canada Inc. (the respondent), related to the purchase of a coin laundry business located in Brampton. The APS contained an entire agreement clause of which the relevant part indicated: “There is no representation, warranty, collateral agreement or condition, affecting this Agreement other than as expressed herein.” In accordance with amended terms to the APS concerning the purchase price the appellants made a partial payment of $100,000 on closing and the balance of the purchase … Read More
Court of Appeal Reiterates Limited Scope of Judicial Intervention to Set Aside Arbitral Awards
In the recent Court of Appeal decision of Mensula Bancorp Inc. v. Halton Condominium Corporation No. 137, the Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision setting aside an arbitrator’s award, on the basis that the approach taken by the learned application judge was contrary to that mandated by Alectra Utilities Corporation v. Solar Power Network Inc., 2019 ONCA 254, 145 O.R. (3d) 481, leave to appeal refused, [2019] S.C.C.A. No. 202 (Alectra). Background The Halton Condominium Corporation 137 (HCC 137) located in Oakville has 82 residential units and 166 parking units located within it’s parking garage, along with common elements such as a lobby and elevators. The parking units comprise of parking for the residential unit owners (the Residential Parking) along with 43 commercial parking units (the Commercial Parking) owned by the defendant Mensula Bancorp Inc. (Mensula), Mensula does not own any residential units and its business is located … Read More
Rescission May Be Available Even If Innocent Third Parties Adversely Affected
In the recent Court of Appeal decision of Urban Mechanical Contracting Ltd. v. Zurich Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 ONCA 589, the Court of Appeal considered whether rescission is ever available as a matter of law when the rights of innocent third parties intervene and restitutio in integrum (putting the parties back to their original position) is impossible. The court answered in the affirmative. In the case the appellants brought two applications seeking a determination of whether, as a matter of law, a bond issuer can rescind a bond agreement on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentations and collusion when doing so would affect the rights of innocent parties. Background The case dealt with a public-private redevelopment project with infrastructure Ontario to build a new 17-storey patient care tower (the Project). The construction was to be financed and carried out by the private sector. The Project was subject to Ontario’s procurement process … Read More
Are my Trademark Rights being Breached? Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Lawyers
In Subway IP LLC v. Budway, Cannabis & Wellness Store, 2021 FC 583, the Federal Court of Canada (“FC”) found that the respondents infringed on the applicant’s registered trademark contrary to section 20 of the Trademarks Act. The FC found that the use of the “BUDWAY” trademark amounted to the tort of passing off and depreciation of goodwill in the appellant’s trademark. As a result, the court granted the applicant, Subway, damages in the amount of $15,000 and an injunction against the respondents prohibiting them, among other things, from dealing in goods or services in association with the trademark or trade name “BUDWAY”. What is Considered a Breach of Trademark Rights? In the FC’s reasons for its decision, it advised generally that: A trademark registration grants the owner the exclusive right to use the mark throughout Canada in respect of the goods and services in the registration; The right to … Read More
Waiving a Contractual Right May Not Be as Easy as You Might Think!
In the recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”), Jack Ganz Consulting Ltd. v. Recipe Unlimited Corporation, 2021 ONCA 907, the ONCA set aside the decision of the motion judge which dismissed the plaintiff’s claim on a motion for summary judgment brought by the respondent. The ONCA opined that the motion judge made an error in law by finding that the appellant had waived the auto renewal provision of the consulting agreement that forms the basis of the dispute. The motion judge’s decision stems largely from the appellant’s representative’s email in which he stated “Let this email serve to remove the auto renewal from the contract”. The motion judge found that this email resulted in a waiver of the auto renewal provision of the consulting agreement by the appellant, and that the waiver was accepted by the respondent in a subsequent email. Though the ONCA conceded that a … 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
Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies Duty Of Honest Performance In Contractual Relationships
In the decision of C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger, 2020 SCC 45, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) expands on the scope of the duty of honest performance in contractual relationships, previously established by the SCC ruling in Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 494. Our firm previously blogged about the Court of Appeal Ruling in this case. See the previous blog here. The case concerns a breach of contract claim made by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is a company that provides maintenance services to condominium communities. The Defendants, a group of condominium corporations, had winter and summer maintenance contracts with the Plaintiff that renewed every two years. The contracts originated in 2012 and ran to 2014. In March or April of 2013, the Defendants decided to terminate the winter contract but they did not provide notice of their intention to terminate until September of 2013. The Defendants delayed … Read More
Case Management Arbitrator – Arbitration | Motion Arbitration and Discovery Dispute Arbitration
TorontoArbitrator.com Sole Arbitrator – $495.00 per hour, plus HST Access to Justice The courts in Ontario continue to address access to justice in the time of the coronavirus, providing a triage process to determine which matters are considered urgent and should be heard. Video conference arrangements in the courts have evolved. We are mindful that both criminal and family law matters are likely to take priority both now and when traditional hearings become available post-coronavirus. Case Management Arbitration | What Can be Agreed to be Referred to Arbitration? We have been offering “case management” arbitration and “case management” arbitrators throughout the pandemic. Moving court-based litigation to arbitration can include the entire contemplated proceedings; the remaining proceeding if court-based litigation has been commenced; or only procedural parts / interlocutory steps of the proceedings, such as: pleadings motions; document production and discovery issues; undertakings and refusals motions; other procedural motions; and while … 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
Court of Appeal Upholds Judicial Ruling Recognizing Anti-Black Racism in Commercial Lease Dispute
In the recent Court of Appeal decision of 8573123 Canada Inc. (Elias Restaurant) v. Keele Sheppard Plaza Inc., 2021 ONCA 371, the Court of Appeal upheld a Superior Court ruling made against a commercial landlord which made note of anti-black racism against the tenant and granted relief from forfeiture based on principles rooted in equity, sparing the tenant from eviction. See our blog regarding the original ruling. In this case the landlord of a commercial plaza unit, sought to evict a husband-and-wife team of restauranteur tenants who ran an African/Black/Caribbean restaurant, catering service and bar. The Landlord’s position was that the tenant had failed to give proper notice with respect to their option to renew and was subsisting in the unit as an overholding tenant. The tenant brought an application before the court for relief from forfeiture and sought the courts assistance in exercising it’s right to continue occupying the … Read More
When Construction Contracts Go Awry: Ontario’s New Construction Contract Adjudication Regime
Construction contracts come with expectations and potential risks to property owners and contractors. Property owners can face issues related to quality of workmanship, delays, and incomplete or abandoned work. Contractors (including sub-contractors) can deal with a myriad of problems which delay or hinder payment, including issues with other sub-trades, the general contractor, or the owner. Whether you are a property owner undertaking construction or renovations, or a contractor (or sub contract) who has been engaged on a project, if things don’t go as planned it’s important to know what your options for recourse may be. A newly established cost-effective adjudication regime has become an important option to consider. Want to learn more about how to protect yourself from a home renovation disaster? Check out our blog. With the Ontario Legislature’s ratification of the new Construction Act, prompt payment and adjudication came into effect on October 1, 2019. The new legislation … 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
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
The Ontario Commercial Mediation Act, 2010 (Blog Part I)
David Alderson is a Commercial Mediator: Hourly Rates: $550.00 to $475.00 per hour (depending on amount of the claims), plus facilities and applicable taxes. Daily Rates and Half-day Rates available. The Ontario Commercial Mediation Act, 2010 (Blog Part I) This blog post (Part I) considers the provisions of the Ontario Commercial Mediation Act 2010, S.O. 2010, c.16, Sch. 3, concerning the application of that legislation, definitions contained in the Act, its interpretation, commencement and termination of the mediation, and the appointment of the mediator, duty of disclosure, and conduct of the mediation. Further blog posts on the Act: (Part II) – will consider other provisions of the Act, including the mediator’s authority, disclosure between parties, confidentiality, admissibility, and the relationship to arbitration and judicial proceedings. (Part III) – will consider other provisions of the Act concerning settlement agreements, enforcement of settlement, application of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, judgments, orders, … Read More