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
Time is of the Essence – Court-Imposed Deadline for Contractual Performance Upheld by Ontario Court of Appeal
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
Ontario Court of Appeal upholds Partial Summary Judgment Decision in VP Auto Sales & Service Ltd v Ahmed2 Inc.
VP Auto Sales & Service Ltd. v Ahmed2 Inc., 2024 ONCA 507, saw the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “Court”) address a motion judge’s grant of partial summary judgment, with damages being reserved for trial. The Court, in one of its rare decisions on partial summary judgment, agreed with Motion judge’s ruling. The respondent entered an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”) with the appellant. Before the closing, the appellant raised concerns about the price being too high and requested a discount, which was refused by the respondent. On the scheduled closing date, the appellant did not proceed with the transaction, citing a breach of the Agreement by the respondent. This resulted in the property remaining unsold, prompting the respondent to seek summary judgment against the appellant for the purchase price of $4,750,000. The motion judge granted summary judgment on liability, finding the appellant accountable for the failure to … Read More
Jurisdiction and forum non conveniens in the Digital Age – Ontario Court Refuses to Certify Class Action against the United States Largest Cryptocurrency Exchange due to Lack of Jurisdiction
In Shirodkar v Coinbase Global Inc. et al, 2024 ONSC 1399, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice provides a review of jurisdictional challenges and the issue of forum non conveniens involving a cryptocurrency class action. The defendants, Coinbase Global, Inc., along with its affiliated entities (“Coinbase”), faced a class action lawsuit brought by a user of its online trading platform, Mr. Shirodkar, which Coinbase sought to dismiss due to a lack of jurisdiction. Coinbase operates a platform for buying and selling digital assets, including cryptocurrency. Between October 2017 and January 2021, Mr. Shirodkar conducted transactions on the Coinbase platform while residing in France and later in Ontario. His complaint, in the form of a class proceeding, alleged that the crypto assets traded on the Coinbase platform should be classified as “securities” under the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 5 and that Coinbase failed to abide by the disclosure requirements … Read More
Licensing Breaches and Lingering Fiduciary Obligations – Ontario Court of Appeal Rules License Agreement Breach Constitutes Fiduciary Duty Violation
In 7868073 Canada Ltd v 1841978 Ontario Inc, 2024 ONCA 371, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently assessed the legal effects of engaging in competing business ventures and the importance of honoring fiduciary duties stemming from license agreements following a parties departure from a former corporation. Robert Langlois (“Langlois”), alongside two partners, launched a powder-coating business, whereby Langlois granted a perpetual license (the “License”) for his industry “knowledge” to 7868073 Ontario Inc. (“786”), a company which the three parties formed and held equal shares in. In turn, 786 owned shares in two other companies (collectively referred to as “ACS”), which Langlois worked with. When Langlois left ACS to start another business without informing his former partners, ACS alleged that Langlois breached the License. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge’s findings, rejecting the argument that the License was void ab initio due to its unreasonable worldwide scope and restrictions … Read More