John Davis and Robert Kalanda, of Gilbertson Davis LLP, were co-presenters at The Knowledge Group’s recent Webcast ‘Cyber Insurance: Latest Developments in 2016‘, on March 21, 2016. The panel also included Barry Fleishman of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP and Jamie Hull of Cassiday Schade LLP. The webinar focused on issues and developments of interest to both Canadian and United States businesses, insurers, organizations, claims professionals, adjusters, and risk managers who are involved with Cyber Insurance Coverages under Standalone Cyber and more traditional insurance policies, and Cyber Risks, Data Breach, Information Security, Cybersecurity and Privacy issues. The panel discussed the judicial, legislative and regulatory developments as well as important considerations bearing on Applications for Cyber policies, including identification and prioritization of risks and exposures, the impact of conditions and exclusions, and the role of counsel as part of the data breach and Cybersecurity response team. John L. Davis is the Managing Partner of … Read More
Ontario Court Provides Jurisdiction Analysis of Place of Contract and Carrying on Business in Ontario
In Re: Essar Steel Algoma Inc. et al, 2016 ONSC 595, an Ontario steel company, Essar, entered into a plan under Canada’s Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”, a Canadian corporate bankruptcy proceeding). As part of its restructuring, Essar entered into a contract with a U.S. supplier, Cliffs. A dispute arose between Essar and Cliffs regarding the contact. Essar brought a motion in the CCAA proceedings seeking, among other things, a declaration that Cliffs had to continue supplying under the contract. In response, Cliffs brought a motion seeking to dismiss Essar’s motion on the basis that the Ontario did not have jurisdiction or that Ontario was not a convenient forum. The Ontario Court applied “real and substantial connection” test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Van Breda, and considered i) whether the contract was made in Ontario and ii) whether Cliffs carried on business on Ontario. With respect to i), the Court … Read More
Enforcement of Ontario Judgment in US (U.S.A and American States)
If you are looking for Enforcement of US Judgment in Ontario, Canada, then click here. ____ Enforcement of Ontario Judgment in US (U.S.A and American States) We sometimes act for clients in litigation against defendants located in an American state, or having assets located in one or more U.S. states. Other times we are retained simply to assess and / or seek enforcement of an Ontario or other Canadian judgment in an U.S. state. Accordingly, the consideration sometimes arises whether a money judgment obtained in a court of Ontario or Canada is readily enforceable in a particular US state. Neither Ontario nor Canada is a party to any bilateral enforcement of money judgement treaty or convention with the U.S. or any particular state in the U.S.. However many U.S. states have enacted statutes concerning the enforcement of foreign (including Ontario and Canada) money-judgments in that state. Since this is largely … Read More
In Jurisdiction Dispute, Court of Appeal Confirms Contract Made Where Acceptance Received
In Eco-Tec Inc. v. Lu, the Plaintiff Ontario company researched, developed and manufactured proprietary technology and products. The Defendants were Lu, a Canadian citizen, his BVI company and three Chinese companies owned by him or his parents. The Defendant companies were the Plaintiff’s consultant, agent or distributor in China. In the course of their relationship, the Plaintiffs and Defendants signed a number of agreements. The Plaintiff ended its relationship with the Defendants in 2012, alleging that the Defendant’s Chinese companies were selling clones of the Plaintiff’s product in China. The Plaintiff brought a claim for breach of confidence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, unjust enrichment and/or unlawful interference with its economic interests. The Defendants brought a motion to dismiss the Ontario action on the basis that the Ontario Court did not have jurisdiction. The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding, among other reasons, that the dispute was connected … Read More
Court Upholds Prevailing Contract Clause
In the recent case of 1252662 Ontario Inc. v Swisslog, the Ontario Court of Superior Justice held that a contractual clause which provided that, in the event of a conflict with another agreement, that terms of the other agreement would prevail. In this case, the parties had entered into a multi-million dollar construction contract. One of the documents to the contract set out a number of terms which limited the liability of the defendant as against the plaintiff for a wide variety of issues, including delay in construction. However, that document also provided that the terms of a companion document would prevail in the event of any conflict between the two terms. That companion document provided a general statement that the plaintiff had “all rights and remedies provided by law and by this agreement”. The construction was ultimately delayed, and the plaintiff sued for its common law damages as incurred a … Read More
Partnership and Contractual Disputes between Professionals (Dentists, Doctors, Accountants, Lawyers, Architects, Engineers)
Partnerships Professionals often carry on their professional practice as partners in a partnership or limited liability partnership. Partnerships can be created simply by conduct and the application of the Partnership Act or by a simple or complex partnership agreement. Joint Venture Contract – Fiduciary Duties? In other cases professionals associate in practice by participation in a contractual joint venture which, depending on the agreement and the circumstances, may or may not at law also be a partnership but, in any event, may attract the duties and obligations of partners, including fiduciary duties. Sharing Space Lastly, some professionals may consider that they are only sharing space with other professional and may be very surprised to find that the arrangement gave rise at law to unexpected obligations. Duty of Honest Performance The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Bhasin v. Hrynew, though not a case about partnerships, nonetheless has a wide-ranging impact … Read More
Ontario Court Rejects Forum of Necessity Argument
In Cook v 1293037 Alberta Ltd., the Ontario Plaintiff was allegedly injured in an incident at the Defendant’s Alberta hotel. The Plaintiff commenced an action in Ontario respecting the incident nearly two years after the incident occurred. The Defendant brought a motion to dismiss the Ontario action on the grounds that Ontario did not have jurisdiction over the claim. By the time the Defendant brought the motion, more than two years had passed since the incident. The Ontario Court applied the test for jurisdiction simpliciter set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda – i.e. whether the claim had a “real and substantial connection” to Ontario. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant corporation was “domiciled or resident in Ontario” because one of the corporation’s directors had moved to Toronto, Ontario following the incident. The Court rejected this argument, stating that there was no evidence that the … Read More
UberHop Launches in Toronto
Uber is in the news again this week after it announced that, starting December 15, 2015, a new service called “uberHOP” will be available “along Toronto’s most popular routes during peak hours.” Using uberHOP a user can request to be picked up along one of the four designated, downtown Toronto routes from one of the predetermined “pickup spots”. The service is to be provided for a flat “fare” of $5.00. The Toronto Transit Commission (the “TTC”) has reportedly asked its lawyers to consider uberHOP in the context of the TTC’s right to operate, maintain and control local passenger transportation services in Toronto. Specifically, the City of Toronto Act, 2006 provides: Exclusive authority of TTC 395. (1) No person other than the TTC shall establish, operate or maintain a local passenger transportation system within the City until the TTC is dissolved or the control and management over the local passenger transportation system is removed from … Read More
David Alderson, Panelist on Law Society of Upper Canada Annotated Partnership Agreement 2015 CDP
David Alderson, of Gilbertson Davis LLP, will be a panelist at the Law Society of Upper Canada Continuing Professional Development program, The Annotated Partnership Agreement 2015, on September 29, 2015 (alternate date, November 20, 2015) on the panel entitled “Review of the Differences (Legal and Drafting) Between a Partnership and a Joint Venture – Understanding the Significant Consequences”. Moderator of the panel (and Chair of the program) is Alison Manzer, Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP and co-panelist is Sunita Doobay, TaxChambers LLP. David Alderson, LL.B (Osgoode), LL.M (Lond.) is a commercial litigator with Toronto insurance and commercial litigation firm Gilbertson Davis LLP. He holds a Master of Laws degree in commercial and corporate law and has been admitted to practice in England & Wales, Bermuda and New York State, as well as Ontario. David has practised local law in England, Bermuda, Dubai and Ontario, in diverse business and commercial litigation practice … Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction Requirements for Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
In Chevron Corp. v. Yaiguaje, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the jurisdictional requirements for an Ontario court to consider a proceeding to enforce a foreign judgment. In this case, the plaintiffs obtained judgment against Chevron Corp. in Ecuador for some $9.5 billion USD, and they sought to enforce that judgment in Canada, against both Chevron Corp. and the Canadian subsidiary, Chevron Canada. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court confirmed that the plaintiff does not have to show a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the foreign judgment debtor. The court need only be satisfied that there is a real and substantial connection between the foreign court and the defendant when the foreign court issued its judgment. Ontario courts will have jurisdiction over a foreign defendant in an enforcement proceeding as long as the defendant was properly served. It is not even a requirement that the defendant have assets in Ontario prior … Read More
BC Court Upholds Worldwide Injunction Against Google – Precedence for Online Piracy
In a recent decision from the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the Court upheld an interlocutory injunction that forced Google to prohibit any websites of an alleged distributor of counterfeit goods to appear in Google search results. Google, who is not a party to the action against the defendant, argued that the Court could only prohibit Google from listing the defendant’s websites on “google.ca”, but not on any other international sites run by Google. Google submitted that the Court could not restrain Google in its actions outside of Canada, because (a) the BC Court did not have jurisdiction to make orders about activity in other jurisdictions, and (b) the BC Court did not have jurisdiction over Google. In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal confirmed that as long as the court has jurisdiction over the underlying action (which was not disputed), it will have jurisdiction over any ancillary motions … Read More
Oppression Actions vs. Derivative Actions under the OBCA
The Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) provides broad remedial options for directors, officers, shareholders, and other “complainants” to correct oppressive or prejudicial actions by or against a corporation. Most commonly, these take the form of either an oppression action or a derivative action. Oppression actions are where a complainant commences an action where that individuals interests have been oppressed or unfairly prejudiced. Derivative actions, on the other hand, are where a complainant starts litigation in the name of the corporation where the corporation has been wronged and the corporation (by its board of directors) chooses not to commence litigation itself. Because derivative actions bring the corporation into litigation without its consent, and often require the corporation to pay the legal costs of that action, leave of the court is required to commence a derivative action. Tersigni v. Georgevitch OBCA actions, and in particular oppression actions, can sometimes blur the legal distinction between … Read More
Court Declines Jurisdiction over New York MVA Despite Passed Limitation Period
In Mannarino v The Estate of Jane Brown, the Superior Court declined to take jurisdiction over a claim involving a motor vehicle accident that took place in New York, even though the limitation period for bringing a claim in New York had since passed. The plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle in the state of New York, and was involved in a car accident with another New York driver. The plaintiff sued in Ontario, claiming in part that the injuries suffered exacerbated an earlier motor vehicle injury which was already properly before the courts in Ontario. The plaintiff argued that the nature of the injuries would require the two actions to be consolidated. The court noted that no consolidation motion had yet been brought. Justice Skarica considered the factors outlined in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda for the court to take jurisdiction over a claim. The court found that none of … Read More
‘Innocence of Muslims’ Copyright Decision Highlights Scope of Moral Rights: Canadian vs. US Protections
A recent high-profile United States copyright decision has highlighted the limited scope of protection granted to an artist’s “moral rights” in their creations in the United States, rights which are given broader protections in other countries, including Canada. Court Rejects Actor’s Copyright Claim This week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States issued an en banc decision reversing an earlier decision restraining YouTube from displaying the controversial film Innocence of Muslims. The injunction was based on the copyright claim of actress Cindy Lee Garcia, whose five-second appearance in the film was based on misrepresentations to her that an entirely different film was being produced. Her controversial lines were dubbed over her appearance in post-production without her permission. The Court initially held that Garcia did not sign away her copyright to her performance, and therefore could make a valid copyright infringement claim regarding her performance in the film, and … Read More
Ontario Court of Appeal summarily dismisses appeal under new rule 2.1
In Brown v. Lloyd’s of London Insurance Market, 2015 ONCA 235, the Court of Appeal for Ontario summarily dismissed an appeal on its own motion, pursuant to rule 2.1. Rule 2.1 has been in force since July 1, 2014, and is intended to put an end to civil actions that are, on the face of the statement of claim, so obviously without merit that no argument apart from counsel’s letter of request is required. Gilbertson Davis’ Lee Akazaki was counsel for one of the successful defendants / respondents. This appears to be the first time the rule has been invoked to dismiss a civil appeal. The practice has proven very economical, as the necessity for expensive, labour-intensive motions to strike statements of claim, has been eliminated in instances where actions are clearly without merit.
Court of Appeal Rejects Apotex’s Claim for Unjust Enrichment
In the recent decision of Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lily and Company, the Ontario Court of Appeal has dismissed a claim by Apotex, a pharmaceutical company that produces generic pharmaceuticals. In the case, the defendant Eli Lilly relied upon the PM(NOC) patent regulations to restrict Apotex from entering the market and selling a generic version of a pharmaceutical which was subject to a patent. That patent was ultimately invalidated. Apotex claimed that claimed that Eli Lilly had been unjustly enriched by making revenues of some $70 million as it was wrongfully delayed from entering the market and making revenues itself. It argued that allowing Eli Lilly to retain its monopolistic profits and only pay Apotex its lower lost revenues would result in a windfall to Lilly that encourages patent holders to improperly delay others from entering the market. Ultimately, the Court’s objection to Apotex’s position was that Apotex could not … Read More
Andrew Ottaway Speaks on CityTV News About Defamation and Social Media
On March 5, 2015, Gillbertson Davis lawyer Andrew Ottaway appeared on CityTV News. Andrew was asked to speak about legal issues arising from defamatory statements on social media. The lawyers at Gilbertson Davis frequently comment on defamation issues, and can represent individuals or businesses in relation to online defamation issues.