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
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
Aborting A Real Estate Deal Can Have Major Consequences
A recent Court of Appeal ruling illustrates the severe consequences that can flow from aborting a real estate transaction. In the decision of Joo v. Tran, 2021 ONCA 107, the Court of Appeal declined to give effect to a term that was included in an agreement of purchase and sale (APS), on the basis that such an interpretation of the clause would have resulted in an absurdity. The clause indicated that the vendors would discharge any encumbrances on or before closing, either through sale proceeds or by way of a solicitor’s undertaking, which term was included in Schedule A of the APS. The decision arose from the appeal of a ruling on a summary judgment motion brought by the seller, who sued the purchaser in a real estate transaction for breach of contract, after the purchaser expressing concerns regarding utility easements on the property, aborted the real estate transaction. The … Read More
Three Things To Know About Separation Agreements
Separation agreements are legal contracts created by two spouses, after separation. Separation agreements set out each spouse’s rights and obligations on issues such as parenting, finances, property, and support. Both married spouses and common-law spouses can enter into a separation agreement. Separation Agreements are Faster and More Economical Than Going to Court Traditional court litigation can be time-consuming and expensive. It can take years to reach a resolution in court. With litigation, the courts decide when and how a matter moves forward. Even at the best of times, many courts have a large backlog. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the courts have an even larger backlog. The court process is also expensive, and the costs are unpredictable. When negotiating a separation agreement outside of court, parties get to decide the pace and are in more control of the costs. Issues to Address in a Separation Agreement Separating spouses … Read More
COVID-19 | Ontario to Permit Some Businesses to Reopen on May 4
On May 1, 2020, the Ontario government announced that a select few businesses will be allowed to re-open on Monday, May 4, 2020 but with strict public health and safety measures in place. Most of these businesses are seasonal businesses and some essential construction projects. This announcement follows from the release earlier this week of the three-staged Framework for Reopening our Province which included stage 1 to reopen certain Ontario businesses gradually under strict guidelines in order to allow the economy to return to some sense of normalcy while continuing to safeguard the public and limit health risks. The following is the list of businesses that may be re-opened on May 4, 2020: Garden centres and nurseries – but they are restricted to alternative methods of sale such as curbside pickup and delivery; Lawn care services and landscaping services; Essential construction projects including shipping and logistics; broadband, telecommunications and digital … Read More
Irreparable Harm for Injunctive Relief Determined by Court, Not Agreement
In dismissing a motion for an interlocutory injunction, the Ontario Superior Court in Homestead House Paint Co. Inc. v Jamieson, 2019 ONSC 2660 (“Homestead”), recently reiterated that a clause deeming a breach to cause irreparable harm does not displace the courts’ exclusive role to determine whether injunctive relief is appropriate and whether or not irreparable harm has been established. The RJR MacDonald Test In RJR-MacDonald v Canada (AG), 1994 SCC 117, the Supreme Court of Canada established the well-known test for an interlocutory injunction. The moving party is required to prove that: There is a serious issue to be tried; That the moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the relief is not granted; and The balance of convenience favours granting the injunction. Irreparable Harm Irreparable harm is defined as harm that “cannot be quantified in monetary terms or which cannot be cured” [RJR-Macdonald]. In Homestead, the moving party argued … 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