On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments on the appeal of an order of the British Columbia Court of Appeal which ordered Google to de-list certain websites from being accessible from any of its country-specific search engine domains. The defendants were alleged to have engaged in selling online counterfeit products of the plaintiff, contrary to the plaintiff’s intellectual property rights. The British Columbia Supreme Court originally ordered the defendants to cease all sales of counterfeit product on the internet. The defendants did not comply, and have hidden themselves somewhere unknown, such that the plaintiff could not practically use the courts to compel the individuals responsible from ceasing this activity. As an alternative, the plaintiff looked to Google to make the defendant’s websites not appear in search result listings, which would largely effect the same result in that customers searching for the plaintiff’s products will not discover … Read More
Court Refuses to Enforce Forum Selection Clause
In McMillan McGee Corp. v Northrop Grumman Canada, 2016 ONSC 6334, the Plaintiff sued the Defendants (“Northrop”) for damages arising from work done by the Plaintiff for the Northrop in Ontario. Northrop’s Request for Proposals included “Purchase Order Terms and Conditions” (the “RFP Terms and Conditions”). The RFP Terms and Conditions contained: a forum selection clause, stating that “either Party may only bring suit in federal or state court in the state from which this Order is issued”; and a choice of law clause, stating that “his Order will be construed and interpreted according to the law of the state from which this Order is issued, as identified in the Order”. “Order” was defined as “The instrument of contracting including this Purchase Order and all referenced documents”. The parties’ relationship involved three Purchase Orders, and many change orders. The lawsuit involved invoices delivered after the Second Purchase Order. The First Purchase Order … Read More
Cross-Border Ship Mortgage Enforcement
In an admiralty action in rem and in personam, Lakeland Bank v. Never E Nuff (Ship), 2016 FC 1096, the Federal Court dismissed the action in personam on a US mortgage, registered in New York State, against the mortgagor, a U.S.based former owner of a 38-foot pleasure craft and against its innocent purchaser for value without notice in Canada and dismissed the purchaser’s counterclaim for abuse of process, but ordered the return of a trailer and other personal items, which had been arrested in Canada with the pleasure craft, but were not covered by the mortgage. The Federal Court did however order that the action in rem be maintained and provided that the plaintiff shall promptly move for sale of the pleasure craft. The plaintiff, an American bank, held a first preferred mortgage registered at the National Vessel Documentation Center, United States Coast Guard. The bank had instituted proceedings in personam and in rem in the United States District Court, Northern District of New York, but it could … Read More
Court of Appeal Upholds Stay Based on Contractual Choice of Forum/Arbitration Clause Against Non-Contracting Parties
In Novatrax International Inc. v. Hägele Landtechnik GmbH, 2016 ONCA 771, the plaintiff and the defendant Hägele were parties to an Exclusive Sales Agreement (“ESA”). Hägele terminated the ESA. The plaintiff sued Hägele, its individual principals and Cleanfix, a North American company related to Hägele. The defendants collectively moved to stay the Plaintiff’s claim, relying on a forum selection clause in the ESA which stated: “The contractual parties agree that German law is binding and to settle any disputes by a binding arbitration through the “Industrie und Handelskammer” (Chamber of Commerce) in Frankfurt.” The motion judge granted the stay, despite the fact that only Hägele, and not the other defendants, was a party to the ESA. The plaintiff appealed on two grounds: that the motion judge erred in i) interpreting the scope of the forum selection clause and ii) staying the action against the defendants who were not party to the … Read More
Why Should Home Buyers Get a Home Inspection?
Right now the Toronto and GTA real estate markets are hot, and the effect that this has on the atmosphere for buyers is apparent. Often buyers are unavoidably participating in bidding wars against many other buyers for one property, and houses are selling for over the asking price with no conditions. Unfortunately, this type of a market creates a risky environment for prospective buyers, since they begin to curtail their rights and remedies in a real estate transaction in order to put forward a more appealing offer to the seller and hope to clinch the deal over the competition. Often times one of the first protections that buyers give up in this type of market is the right to get a home inspection done. This is a very important right in the buying process and here are some reasons you should think twice before waiving this right in the purchase … Read More
Ontario Court of Appeal Finds Misrepresentation and Breaches of OSC Rulings Against Trump Hotel Developer
In the recently released decision of Singh v. Trump, the Ontario Court of Appeal has reversed a lower court decision and granted summary judgment in favour of two investors in the Trump International Hotel & Tower in Toronto, on the basis that the developer made representations to purchasers that purchasing the hotel condominium units would result in highly profitable rental income. The court found those representations to have been false, and that making those representations was in contravention of a previous Ontario Securities Commission ruling which prohibited the developer from marketing the hotel condominium units as a profit-making investment. The Court of Appeal also reversed the motion judge’s dismissal of claims of oppression, collusion, and breaches of fiduciary duty as against current US presidential candidate Donald Trump and other invidiual defendants, on the basis that those issues were not properly put before the summary judgment motion judge at the motion. The … Read More
Ontario Court of Appeal Split Decision on Appropriate Jurisdiction in Online Defamation Case
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Goldhar v. Haaretz.com on the issue of whether Ontario was the appropriate jurisdiction to litigate a defamation claim relating to an online publication by an Israeli newspaper that purported to defame Mr. Goldhar, who lives in Toronto but has business connections in Israel. The majority held that the litigation could proceed in Ontario, as the court had jurisdiction and also that Israel was not a clearly more convenient forum. The majority concluded that, even though Mr. Goldhar was likely more well-known in Israel, and the fact that the facts asserted in the article related to his ownership of a prominent Israeli soccer team, the article had the potential to damage his reputation in Ontario, and the article was read by a number of Ontarians (though only a fraction of the number who read the article in Israel), and therefore, the court had jurisdiction … Read More
Toronto Lawyers for Victims of Investment Fraud: When Investing in a Toronto Business Goes Bad
A bad investment may not be the result of market fluctuations. A false representation inducing and leading to an investment loss may be actionable at law. Often there is a promised high-yield on an investment in a company, project or property. Sometimes a loss occurs from a scheme where there is no intention by those entrusted with an investment to make the promised purchase or transfer. In Ontario, civil lawsuits for the victims of investment fraud have often been framed as claims for deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and restitution. Increasingly though, plaintiffs in lawsuits simply claim damages for losses arising directly from the tort of civil fraud. The leading case on civil fraud in Canada is the Supreme Court of Canada decision in 2014 in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, and in that case civil fraud is defined this way “… the tort of … Read More
Toronto Attorneys for Enforcement of U.S. Judgments in Ontario, Canada
American judgments, from either State or U.S. Federal Courts may be recognised and enforced in Ontario, Canada. The test for whether the Court of Ontario will recognize and enforce a U.S. judgment is as follows: did the U.S. Court have jurisdiction, in accordance with the principles of private international law as applied by Canadian courts? is the judgment final and conclusive? is the judgment for a definite and ascertainable sum of money or, if not a money judgment (e.g. an injunction), are its terms sufficiently clear, limited in scope and do the principles of comity require the domestic court to enforce it? The Ontario Court will also consider the following, limited defences of: fraud (i.e. whether the U.S. judgment was obtained by fraud); natural justice (i.e. whether the U.S. proceedings were contrary to Canadian notions of fundamental justice); and public policy (i.e. whether the U.S. judgment was contrary to our view … Read More
Business Dirty Tricks: Unfair Competition: Intentional Interference, Inducing Breach of Contract, Conspiracy and Defamation
Sometimes businesses and their stakeholders act wrongfully in seeking to advance their interests and / or harm competitors. There are often reports of the “dirty tricks” used by those in business to seek to destroy, defeat or diminish the effectiveness of a competitor. These are often unethical tactics, but sometimes such conduct is also wrongful and has been recognized by the common law as actionable in the courts for damages or injunctive or other urgent equitable relief, or prohibited by a statute which provides for a civil monetary remedy or grounds for an injunction. These causes of action have been recognized and provide the basis of lawsuits for harm, loss and damage, and in suitable circumstances, grounds for an immediate injunction or mandatory order prohibiting the further commission of the wrongful acts. In short, wrongful intentional acts causing harm, loss or damage to businesses or their stakeholders may give rise to a cause of action in common law business torts (the so-called … Read More
The Importance of Urgent Injunctive Relief | Referrals for Injunctions
Litigation is sometimes a slow and costly process, designed to ensure all parties are provided with sufficient opportunity to present their best case in a dispute. Unfortunately, personal and business realities often move much faster than ordinary litigation can accommodate, meaning that the time it takes to succeed in litigation can – in itself – be detrimental to your interests or your client’s interests. Interim and Interlocutory Injunctions Fortunately, the courts have a robust system in place to give parties immediate, if temporary, relief in the form of an injunction to ensure their rights are not compromised by the slow grind of the litigation process, giving all parties the time and opportunity to flesh out their positions once the immediate risk of harm has been dealt with. This kind of relief is limited only to situations where one can establish that such urgent remedies are truly necessary – that is, … Read More
US Court of Appeals Reverses Lower Court Decision; Re-Opens US Trademark Infringement Claims Against Canadian Operation
In Trader Joe’s Company v. Hallatt, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently overturned a lower court decision which had originally dismissed claims that Mr. Hallatt, a Canadian citizen but permanent resident of the United States, was violating the trademark rights of Trader Joe’s, a popular US grocery store chain, by reselling their products in Canada under the name “Pirate Joe’s” and by using an allegedly confusingly similar store design and motif. Mr. Hallatt’s business involved purchasing Trader Joe’s products in Washington state, transporting them across the border to British Columbia, and re-selling the product to Canadians at a mark-up. Trader Joe’s, which does not carry on business in Canada, sued in Washington state, claiming Mr. Hallatt was infringing on their US trademark rights. They asserted that Hallatt’s actions were damaging their trademark rights under US law. At the lower level, Trader Joe’s claims were dismissed, as … Read More
Court Confirms Inference of Dissipation in Mareva Motions Based on Fraud
In the recent case of Electromart (Ontario) Inc. v Fabianiak et al., the Ontario Superior Court considered the level of evidence required to prove that there is a real risk of the dissipation of assets, one of the elements necessary to obtain a Mareva injunction freezing a defendant’s assets. Normally, a court will not freeze a defendant’s assets just because the plaintiff is concerned that they will not be able to recover any money on their judgment at the end of litigation. However, where the court is convinced that the defendant is improperly dissipating his or her assets to make recovery more difficult or impossible, the court will freeze a defendant’s assets to prevent that from happening. In addition to proving a strong prima facie case, a moving plaintiff must also show why the freeze is necessary – that is, some reason to believe that assets will be dissipated if the order is not granted. The … Read More
Court Stays Arbitration but Denies Costs to Successful Party for “Blameworthy Conduct”
In Gorman v Kosowan, 2016 ONSC 5085, the applicant commenced a proceeding regarding a business dispute. The applicant and individual respondent were joint owners of a transportation and warehouse business. A dispute arose between them. The respondents subsequently terminated the applicant’s employment and excluded him from the business. The applicant sought relief from the allegedly oppressive conduct under the Canada Business Corporations Act and the Ontario Business Corporations Act. The respondents brought a motion to stay the oppression application based on an arbitration clause in the parties’ Unanimous Shareholders’ Agreement (“USA”). The USA arbitration clause required arbitration for “disputes under” the USA. The Judge found that the applicant’s claims were covered by the arbitration clause and granted the respondents’ motion to stay the application. In the Judge’s subsequent costs decision, here, the Judge denied the respondents’ request for costs of the motion. While a winning party is typically entitled to its costs … Read More
New Study Reveals Trends in Canadian Defamation Cases
A new study by a Canadian law professor analysed reported Canadian defamation lawsuit decisions between 1973-1983 and between 2003-2013. The results of the study revealed some interesting trends, including: in cases between 1973 and 1983, 53% of claims were successful. However, in cases between 2003-13, only 28% claims were successful. The study’s author suggests various theories for the decline in the success rate, including that courts are seeking to give greater protection to freedom of expression; during the 2003-13 period, plaintiffs were far more successful in cases involving “new media” (email or internet), with a 62% success rate (more than double the success rate for cases between 2003-13 considered as a whole). The study’s author suggests that the difference may be explained by the fact “new media” communications are less likely to be vetted and edited than publications in “old” media, and there may be better evidence of “new media” … Read More
Joint Venture Disputes and International Joint Venture Arbitration
Joint ventures are often established to synergize what each member of the joint venture can add to the consortium. Sometimes a joint venture is the structure chosen because those members engaged in the joint venture are located in different jurisdictions, a consideration which may be pivotal for its success. While invariably created by contractual agreement, some joint ventures have been held by the courts to be a partnership, while others have been determined to be merely contractual, without comprising a partnership. A myriad of considerations have been used by the courts in determining whether a joint venture is a partnership. Issues have also arisen concerning the management and operational structure of a joint venture and whether such structure necessarily results in the joint venture being found to comprise a partnership. Historically the distinction between partner and contractor has been important, since the law only imposed a fiduciary duty upon partners, and not … Read More
Court of Appeal Provides Guidance on “Forum of Necessity” Doctrine
In Arsenault v. Nunavut, 2016 ONCA 207, the Plaintiff commenced a lawsuit in Ontario regarding an employment dispute with the defendant, the government of the Canadian territory of Nunavut. The motion judge concluded that Ontario did not have jurisdiction over the dispute because the dispute did not have a “real and substantial connection” with the province of Ontario, and that Nunavut was clearly the more appropriate forum to hear the dispute. The Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the motion judge had not properly considered whether Ontario was the “forum of necessity” – i.e. the doctrine allowing the Court to assume jurisdiction over a dispute, even though there is no “real and substantial connection” with Ontario, because there is no other forum in which the plaintiff can reasonably seek relief (see our previous posts regarding the doctrine of “forum of necessity” here and here). The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appeal. The Court of Appeal noted … Read More