Once a mortgage has been defaulted on, banks and other mortgage lenders will often charge mortgagors (you-the borrower and their customer) exorbitant and excessive fees, whether it be intentional or not. Time and again, we have seen these fees levied at exponentially greater amounts than lenders are reasonably entitled to charge under the circumstances. The charging of such unreasonably high fees has not been viewed favourably by the courts. In the midst of Covid-19 related complications and with other financial difficulties remaining on the horizon, many property owners have been unable to continue to pay their mortgages on a consistent basis. One difficulty that presents itself for home owners in this type of situation is the ability of their mortgage lenders to sell their properties via “power of sale” proceedings. A power of sale is meant to pay off secured mortgage lenders for the amount that they are owed under … Read More
Arbitration Clauses Enforced as Non-Consumers Ejected from Telus Class Action by Supreme Court of Canada
In Telus Communications Inc. v Wellman, 2019 SCC 19, the Supreme Court of Canada has favoured arbitration clauses in staying the claims of non-consumers in a class action against TELUS. The Court’s decision reflects a continued commitment of courts to taking a hands-off approach in upholding valid arbitration agreements, while its citation of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s Uber decision indicates that other routes – such as unconscionability – may be pursued to challenge specific arbitration clauses. Facts A proposed class action was filed in Ontario alleging that TELUS had for a number of years rounded up calls to the next minute without telling customers. The class included both consumers and non-consumers (business customers). Each individually agreed to the same non-negotiable standard form contract. The contract included an arbitration clause requiring all disputes (other than collection of accounts by TELUS) to be mediated, and failing that, arbitrated. Ontario’s Consumer Protection … Read More
Employee or Not? An Uber Problem to be Decided by Ontario Courts: Arbitration Not the Route
In its first reported decision of the year, the Ontario Court of Appeal has allowed a proposed class action against Uber to proceed in Ontario court. Facts The Appellant commenced a proposed class action in January 2017. They sought, among other things, a declaration that Uber drivers are employees of Uber and governed by Ontario’s Employment Standards Act [“ESA”], as well as $400 million in damages payable to the class for alleged Uber violations of ESA provisions. Prior to certification, Uber brought a motion to stay the proceeding, requesting the court to enforce a clause in the agreement that requires all disputes to be arbitrated in Amsterdam according to the law of the Netherlands. Ontario Superior Court of Justice The motion judge held that the arbitration clause was enforceable and stayed the action. Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s Seidel decision and the Ontario Court of Appeal’s TELUS ruling, the motion … Read More
Popack v. Lipszyc: Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitration Awards – Clarifying the term “binding”
Popack v. Lipszyc appears to be the first Ontario Court of Appeal case on the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards under the 2017 International Commercial Arbitration Act (“ICAA”). The ICCA includes the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“New York Convention”) and the 2006 amended version of UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”). The appellants used articles 35 and 36 of Model Law to apply for the recognition and enforcement of the international commercial arbitration award they received in August 2013 against the respondents. While the application judge dismissed the application, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The Court of Appeal stated that “in Ontario, a strong “pro-enforcement” legal regime” exists for the recognition and enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards, as grounds for refusal are “to be construed narrowly”. Importantly, the Court, and not the tribunal, is the proper avenue to … Read More
- Page 2 of 2
- 1
- 2