In Barrette Legal Inc. v. Lawee Enterprises, L.L.C., the requesting party, (“Barette”), sought to remove the owner’s (“Lawee”) Mark, from the trade-mark register for non-use, pursuant to section 45 of the Trade-marks Act (“Act”). Lawee was the registered owner of the trade-mark “Smart For Life Cookie Thin”, which it used to describe and advertise cookies it sold (“goods”). Barrette challenged this registration for alleged non-use in Canada in between May 18, 2013 – May 18, 2016, at para 3. What Constitute “Use” of a Trade-Mark Section 4(1) of the Act states that a trade-mark is deemed to be used in association with goods, if at the time of the transfer of the property in, or possession of the goods, in the normal course of trade, it is marked on the goods or its packaging, or in any manner in which notice of the association is provided to the person whom … Read More
24 the New 36? Court of Appeal Reaffirms Presumptive Ceiling in Reasonable Notice Case
In Dawe v. The Equitable Life Insurance Company of Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that, absent exceptional circumstances, the presumptive ceiling for reasonable notice is 24 months. In Dawe, the plaintiff was a Senior Vice President of an insurance company and was terminated after 37 years of employment without cause, following a minor dispute relating to the purchase and use of promotional sporting event tickets. As a result, the plaintiff sued his employer for wrongful dismissal. Both the plaintiff and his employer moved for partial summary judgment on two issues: (1) the calculation of the proper notice period, and (2) the plaintiff’s entitlement to his employer’s bonus plan, at para 4. The plaintiff was successful on the motion for partial summary judgment and the motion judge determined that 30 months was the appropriate notice period and that the plaintiff was entitled to his bonus during this period. In … Read More
Commercial Lease Dispute Arbitrator – Leasing Disputes and Rent Arbitration
David Alderson, LL.B., LL.M, Qualified Arbitrator – Arbitrator for Commercial Lease Disputes Sole Arbitrator – $450.00 per hour, plus HST David has been accredited by the ADR Institute as Canada as a Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb). He accepts appointments as a commercial arbitrator, including as commercial lease dispute arbitrator, at reasonable hourly rates and with good availability. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has appointed David in commercial arbitration matters. David is a member of the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society, and has successfully completed the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society Gold Standard Course in Commercial Arbitration. He is also a Full Member of the ADR Institute of Ontario and appears in its Member Directory. David is Member Roster Arbitrator on the Ontario Bar Association Remote Arbitration and Mediation List. Local Experience David has appeared as a barrister in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (including the Commercial List), the Divisional Court, the Ontario Court of Appeal, the … Read More
Toronto Arbitrator for Shareholder Disputes, Partnership Disputes and Property Disputes
David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M, Q.Arb: Commercial Arbitrator for Shareholder Disputes, Partnership Disputes and Joint Venture Disputes Competitive Hourly Fee Rates Offered. Sole Arbitrator – $450.00 per hour, plus HST David has been accredited by the ADR Institute as Canada as a Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb). He accepts appointments as a commercial arbitrator (sole arbitrator and party appointee) at reasonable hourly rates and with good availability. He accepts appointment as arbitrator in shareholder disputes, partnership disputes and joint venture disputes. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has appointed David as arbitrator in commercial arbitration matters. David is a member of the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society, and has successfully completed the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society Gold Standard Course in Commercial Arbitration. He is also a Full Member of the ADR Institute of Ontario and appears in its Member Directory. David is on the Member Arbitrator on the Ontario Bar Association Remote Arbitration and Mediation Member Roster. David has … Read More
When May an Academic Complaint be Brought to Court? Clarification from the Ontario Court of Appeal
In Lam v University of Western Ontario, 2019 ONCA 82, the Ontario Court of Appeal reiterated that courts have jurisdiction over claims for damages for breach of contract and tort even when the claims arose out of an academic dispute. Judicial History After commencement of the action by the student, the university brought a motion for summary judgment. The principal basis for the motion was that the student’s claim related to the university’s decisions about teaching, mentoring, supervising and administering its Ph.D. program and therefore to matters that are “purely academic in nature” [para 22]. The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action. The motion judge held that academic issues must be distinguished from legal issues when reviewing a university’s conduct, and that academic issues are to be resolved by the university’s internal process, subject to judicial review [para 23]. In reversing the motion judge’s decision, the Court of … 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
Court of Appeal Analyzes Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
In Forbes Energy Group Inc. v. Parsian Energy Rad Gas, 2019 ONCA 372 (CanLII), the plaintiff commenced an action seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to make payments to the defendants under a contract. The contract contained a clause stating that it was “governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and the Parties agree to attorn to the courts of England”. The defendants sought to stay the action on the basis of that clause in favour of the courts of England. The motion judge granted a stay, finding that the plaintiff had failed to meet the test to displace a forum selection clause: to demonstrate “strong cause” that the clause should not be enforced. On appeal, the Court of Appeal stated the “strong cause” test only applies to forum selection clauses that grant exclusive jurisdiction to a foreign jurisdiction. The motion judge did not … Read More
Determining a “Series of Incidents” under Ontario’s Human Rights Code
The recent decision in Martin v Trinity United Church, 2019 HRTO 726 highlights limitation periods and the applicable factors to determine what constitutes a “series of incidents” under Ontario’s Human Rights Code (“Code”). Limitation Period under Ontario’s Code Section 34 of the Code provides that a person who believes that his or her rights under Part I of the Code have been infringed must apply to the Tribunal: (a) Within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or (b) If there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series. Late applications are allowed if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay. Determining a “Series of Incidents” In order to establish that discrimination constituted a “series of incidents,” there must be a connection … Read More
Obiter or Not? A Refresher from the Ontario Court of Appeal
The recent case of The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. v VimpelCom Ltd., 2019 ONCA 354 [Catalyst], serves as a reminder that a court’s finding will not be considered obiter simply because there was another sufficient basis for the court’s decision. The Rule of Precedent The rule of precedent requires that courts render decisions that are consistent with the previous decisions of higher courts [Canada (AG) v Bedford, 2012 ONCA 186]. There are several well-known rationales for the rule: it promotes consistency, certainty and practicability in the law, sound judicial administration, and it enhances the legitimacy and acceptability of the common law [David Polowin Real Estate Ltd. v Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., 2005 ONCA 21093]. Ratio vs Obiter The traditional dichotomy of ratio decidendi (“ratio”) and obiter dicta (“obiter”) is important for the scope of the rule. Only the ratio is binding on a subsequent court. Ratio refers to … Read More
Ontario Cottage Litigation Lawyers: Able to Assist in Disputes Involving Cottage Owners, Purchasers, or Sellers
From our office in Toronto, Ontario, we are able to provide efficient and result-oriented solutions with respect to the unique issues arising from cottage and recreational property disputes. Failures to Close Failures to complete an agreement of purchase and sale may be due to the Vendor or the Purchaser. Failures of the Purchaser are often attributable to the Purchaser’s inability to obtain financing that was anticipated from a mortgage or another property sale. In some instances, the Vendor may retain the deposit and claim damages for losses sustained from the failure to close. Failures to close may also be due to the Vendor. Frequently, the Vendor’s failure to close is due to the Vendor’s inability to provide clean title to the property or to perform the necessary repairs prior to closing. In some instances, a Purchaser will seek to recover damages for any resultant loss, while in other cases the … Read More
Can a Pre-Incorporation Contract Prevent the Forfeiture of a Deposit on the Failed Closing of a Property?
In Benedetto v. 2453912 Ontario Inc., the Ontario Court of Appeal considered whether a pre-incorporation contract could prevent the forfeiture of a deposit provided pursuant to an agreement of purchase of sale of real property. In this case, the purchaser signed an agreement for purchase and sale of real property, indicating that he was signing as a buyer “in trust for a company to be incorporated without any personal liabilities”. The purchaser then provided $100,000.00 as the deposit to secure the purchase of the property. The purchaser subsequently advised that he would not be closing on the transaction and sought the return of the deposit. The vendor refused and commenced civil proceedings resulting in a summary judgment motion, which was held in favour of the vendor. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the findings of the lower court and indicated that: A forfeited deposit does not constitute damages for breach … Read More
Court Considers Nuisance Test for Neighbours’ Tree in Allen v MacDougall
In the recent case of Allen v MacDougall, 2019 ONSC 1939, a neighbour applied for a court order authorizing the destruction of a maple tree growing amid two Toronto properties. The Ontario Superior Court refused. In its decision, the Court clarified the applicable test for nuisance and confirmed that “the tendency of courts today is that trees are not lightly ordered removed on the basis of being a nuisance.” Facts The large maple tree sat jointly on the land of two neighbours. According to s. 10(2) of The Forestry Act (“Act”), the maple is therefore owned by both neighbours: “Every tree whose trunk is growing on the boundary between adjoining lands is the common property of the owners of the adjoining lands.” The Applicants, as part of their home renovations and extensions, wanted the tree chopped down. The Applicants claimed that their intended home addition on the north side of … Read More
Prescriptive Easements in Ontario Cottage Country
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in Arcon Property Holdings Ltd. v. Nelson, 2019 ONSC 2267, involved a dispute between cottage owners over easement rights related to a 15 foot wide strip of land near Grand Bend. The right-of-way was mainly a paved road used by the cottage owners to access their properties from the road but it also extended past the pavement to the waterfront. The applicant complained that the respondents parked their vehicles on the right-of-way which prevented them from accessing the beach, launching their boat, building ramps and structures to facilitate launching their boat and parking a trailer in their driveway. The applicant sought an order prohibiting the respondents from parking on the right-of-way and interfering with their easement rights. The Court found that the applicant’s easement was merely for “ingress and egress, in, over and upon” the property and did not provide the applicant with the right to access … Read More
Court Finds Waterfront Cottage Sufficiently Unique for Specific Performance
In Carr v Rivet, 2019 ONSC 1546, the Ontario Superior Court recently dismissed a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (“CPL”). In doing so, the Court held that a waterfront cottage on Talon Lake was sufficiently unique to form the basis of a claim for specific performance. Importantly, in addition to finding that the particular cottage was specifically unique to the plaintiffs, the Court noted that most waterfront properties are, by their nature, unique. Unlike mass-produced properties, each waterfront property possesses different exposure and other water-related features that make it unique. Facts The day after their real estate transaction was supposed to close, the Plaintiffs commenced an action seeking specific performance. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs successfully brought an ex parte motion to register a CPL against the property. The Defendant then moved to discharge the CPL arguing, among other things, that the property was not sufficiently unique to support … Read More
Are Section 44 Exam Reports under SABS Subject to PIPEDA Disclosure?
To date, the Ontario personal injury bar has assumed that assessors and “IME” companies performing examinations under s. 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) are subject to access requirements under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). The “leading case” on IME’s and PIPEDA, Wyndowe v. Rousseau, a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, held that a doctor appointed to perform an independent medical examination under a disability insurance policy had to provide access to a final report and notes. The disability insurer’s internal process under the private insurance policy would not have been a formal dispute resolution process and therefore not exempt from PIPEDA. Under clause 9(3)(d) of PIPEDA, an organization is not required to give access to personal information if it was “generated in the course of a formal dispute resolution process.” Is a s. 44 examination subject to that exemption? The federal Office of the Privacy … Read More
Court Clarifies “Clean Hands” Doctrine Applies to Post-Breach Conduct
In 232702 Ontario v 1305 Dundas, 2019 ONSC 1885, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently considered the “clean hands” doctrine in the context of a terminated commercial lease for non-payment of rent. Importantly, the Court clarified that the doctrine of “clean hands” is not restricted to conduct occurring prior to the breach, but encompasses subsequent conduct as well. The Test for Relief from Forfeiture Under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act and s. 20 of the Commercial Tenancies Act, a court may grant relief from forfeiture, including forfeiture of a lease for non-payment of rent. The court’s power to relieve from forfeiture is an equitable remedy. It is discretionary, fact-specific and granted sparingly. The party seeking relief must prove that enforcing the contractual right would lead to inequitable consequences. In Saskatchewan River Bungalows Ltd. v Maritime Life Assurance Co., the Supreme Court of Canada held that a … Read More
Discrimination under Ontario’s Human Rights Code is Restricted to Enumerated Grounds: A Reminder in Stukanov v Paypal Canada Inc.
A recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) serves as a reminder that grounds for discrimination under Ontario’s Human Rights Code (“Code”) are restricted to those enumerated in the Code. Analogous grounds are not prohibited. In Stukanov v Paypal Canada Inc., 2019 HRTO 386, the HRTO dismissed an application alleging that Paypal discriminated against Canadian residents. Facts The applicant wanted to close his U.S. dollar account with Paypal and have the account money sent to him in U.S. dollars, either by cheque or by direct deposit into his U.S. dollar account at his Toronto bank. Paypal, apparently, would not send a cheque to Canada, and would only deposit money into a Canadian dollar account when sending money to a bank located in Canada. The applicant’s primary allegation was that he cannot receive his Paypal funds in U.S. dollars because he is a Canadian resident. He claimed that … Read More