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
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
Jurisdiction of Arbitrator Through Parties’ Conduct Affirmed by Ontario Divisional Court: Actions Speak Louder than Words
In The Joseph Lebovic Charitable Foundation et al. v. Jewish Foundation of Greater Toronto, 2024 ONSC 4400, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the authority of an arbitrator to find his own jurisdiction over issues in dispute between parties in an arbitration, and reminded parties that their conduct can imply their approval of an arbitrator’s jurisdiction. The applicants entered a donor agreement to make a sizable charitable donation to the respondent, payable in installments. In return, the respondent would name its campus in Vaughan after the applicants. The donor agreement included an arbitration clause, where parties would submit to arbitrations for “a dispute arising out of, or in connection with, the agreement.” A dispute indeed arose between the parties over a proposed sale of part of the campus named after the applicants, as well as the applicants’ payment schedule of their donation. Both parties filed Notices of Arbitration under the … Read More
Recognition and Enforcement of a CIETAC Arbitral Award Allowed as Partial Summary Judgment
In Shanghai Investment Co. Ltd. V. Lu et al. 2024 ONSC 2762, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List), allowed a foreign arbitral award to be recognised and made enforceable as a partial summary judgment. The Plaintiff, Shanghai Lianyin Investment Co Ltd. (“SLIC”) sought the recognition and enforcement of a CAD $233 million arbitral award rendered under the rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Committee (“CIETAC”) against the Defendant Zheng Yao Lu (“Lu”) as a threshold matter; and a declaration that the other defendant, Lichun Guo (“Guo”) held her interest in two properties in Ontario on behalf of Lu, and that SLIC could enforce its award against these properties. The court found that the CIETAC award should be recognised and made enforceable as both of the following requirements under Articles IV and V of the New York Convention (incorporated in the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. … Read More
Ontario Court Favours Place of Arbitration over Forum Selection Clause in Asset Purchase Agreement
In Tehama Group Inc v. Pythian Services Inc., 2024 ONSC 1819, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that the place of an arbitration, not a forum selection clause in a contract, determines the jurisdiction that recourse against an arbitral award must be taken in. The litigants were parties to a cross-border asset purchase agreement (the “APA”). The APA included an arbitration clause for disputes regarding the calculation of the purchase price, and the parties appointed “the Toronto office” of an accounting firm as arbitrator for these disputes. The APA also included broad forum selection and governing law clauses, which required “any suit, action or other proceeding arising out of this Agreement” to be brought exclusively in the courts of New York and in accordance with its laws. A dispute arose regarding an earnout clause in the APA, and the parties proceeded to arbitration. When the Toronto-based arbitrator rendered an … Read More
Letters of credit and the fraud exception: Supreme Court examines applicability to fraud by a third party
A letter of credit or a bank guarantee is an autonomous instrument that is issued by a financial institution on the directions of a customer. The letter of credit seeks to underwrite the customer’s obligations to the beneficiary under the distinct underlying contract. It entitles the beneficiary to payment on demand from the issuing bank, so long as that demand strictly complies with the requirements set out in the letter of credit. The obligation of the financial institution to pay when presented with a valid demand is near absolute. The only recognized exception in Canadian law is when there is fraud by the beneficiary that is brought to the financial institution’s attention prior to payment. In Eurobank Ergasias S.A. v. Bombardier Inc. 2024 SCC 11 (CanLII), the Supreme Court of Canada examined a critical issue of when an issuing bank is required to refuse to honour a demand for payment … Read More
Adjournment Request Denied! Ontario Court Recognizes Arbitral Award from China
In the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“ONSC”), Xiamen International Trade Group Co., Ltd. v. LinkGlobal Food Inc., 2023 ONSC 6491, the applicant sought the recognition and enforcement of an arbitration judgment of the Xiamen Arbitration Commission (the “Award”). The underlying arbitration dispute related to a contract entered into by the parties wherein the applicant was to purchase protective masks from the respondent for the purchase price of US $532,224.00. The contract between the parties contained an arbitration clause and a choice of law clause providing that the law of the People’s Republic of China governed any dispute over the contract between the parties. In the arbitral proceeding in China, the applicant sought a refund of the purchase price of the masks and compensation for other costs incurred. A panel of three arbitrators unanimously ruled in favour of the applicant and granted the Award. As the … Read More
Ontario Superior Court of Justice Finds Expired Arbitration Award Relevant in Motion for Injunctive Relief
In Rogers v. TELUS Communications Inc., 2023 ONSC 5398, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that the terms of an expired arbitration decision are relevant when a party seeks injunctive relief that contradicts its terms. The moving and responding parties are both prominent competitors in the Canadian telecommunications market. Under a requirement imposed by the Government of Canada, their customers have the reciprocal ability to “roam” on the other carrier’s network in areas where their own carrier does not provide coverage. This obligation allows Canadian customers to access wireless services across the country. For a time, the parties did not agree on what was displayed to customers when they were roaming on a competitor’s network. The primary dispute was whether the network identifier (“NID”) displayed in the top-left corner of most mobile devices would connote an extension of their own carrier’s network (i.e. “[Carrier]-EXT”), or if it would notify customers … Read More
Stay of Court Proceedings in Favour of Arbitration – Standard of Proof
In the recent decision Husky Food Importers & Distributors Ltd. v. JH Whittaker & Sons Limited, 2023 ONCA 260, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) reviewed the law of international commercial arbitration, and in particular opined on the issue of the standard of proof that a party needs to meet in order for the court to grant a stay of a court proceeding pursuant to section 9 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017 (the “Act”), in favour or arbitration. Section 9 of the Act states as follows: Where, pursuant to article II (3) of the Convention or article 8 of the Model Law, a court refers the parties to arbitration, the proceedings of the court are stayed with respect to the matters to which the arbitration relates. The appellant submitted that the proper analytical framework for assessing a request to stay an action under the Act was set out in the … 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
Arbitration and Summary Judgment – Is Summary Judgment Available in Arbitration Matters?
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
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
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
Online Defamation and Use of Pseudonyms
Online Defamation (“Cyber Libel”) Many of our defamation matters come from the internet. These cases take many forms, from defamatory articles, to social media posts, to negative reviews of a business or person. Courts have recognized that online defamation or “cyber libel” is far more perverse than other forms of defamation. This is because internet users can reach the global population within seconds by publishing defamatory remarks about an individual or a business. As such, cyber libel can be significantly more damaging to a person’s business and/or reputation than other forms of defamation. Posting via Online Pseudonyms Some individuals go so far as to create aliases to post malicious and defamatory comments about others on the internet. In Ontario, you can sue an anonymous defamer by naming them as “John Doe” and/or “Jane Doe” in your claim against them. There are methods to determine the identity of these anonymous defamers, … Read More
Toronto Defamation Lawyers – Libel and Slander Law in Ontario
Defamation is the tort of false publication (whether written or oral). Typically, a publication which tends to lower a person’s reputation in the opinion of reasonable members of society, or to expose a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, is defamatory and will attract liability. The major piece of legislation governing the law of defamation in Ontario is the Libel and Slander Act. According to the Act, you can be defamed in two ways: via either (1) Libel and/or (2) Slander. What is Libel? Defamatory communications may be by words, pictures, sounds, or other forms of communication. They may be published on the internet, in social media postings, on websites, online reviews, chat rooms, or in other forms of broadcast. The dissemination of such defamatory comments or communications to the public is libelous. What is Slander? Slander is the public utterance of words that are meant to disparage a person … Read More
Is it a Gift or a Loan?
Have you loaned money to a friend or relative who now refuses to repay you and alleges that the loan was actually a gift? Or are you on the other side of this problem wherein your friend or relative gifted you a sum of money a while ago but is now demanding repayment? These issues come up most often in the private sphere where parties to a transaction do not habitually document all of their ventures. Nevertheless, verbal loan or gift agreements of this sort are still enforceable. Litigation involving a disagreement about whether a transaction was a loan or a gift is typically commenced by the transferor (i.e. the person who has transferred the funds) who claims that the transfer was a loan and not a gift. If you require assistance in either commencing such a claim in the Superior Court of Justice or defending against same, we have … Read More
Five Common Myths about Divorce
Both Spouses Need to Consent to Divorce In Canada, if one spouse wants to divorce, they do not need to seek their spouse’s consent to divorce. Canadian courts will grant a divorce under three grounds: if spouses have been separated from each other for a year without reconciling; if a spouse has proven adultery occurred during the marriage and they have not absolved their spouse; and if one spouse proved they received mentally or physically cruel treatment from their spouse. The Spouse Who Earns Less Income Always Receives Spousal Support Unlike child support, separated and divorced spouses do not have an automatic right to receive spousal support when their marriage ends. Separated spouses may be entitled to receive spousal support. There are several factors which give rise to an entitlement to spousal support. These factors include the length of the marriage or relationship, the roles each spouse played in the … Read More
- Page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2