Condominium Limitation Periods and Timelines – Mark Your Calendar!

Fatima VieiraCivil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial Arbitration, Commercial Litigation, Condo Construction, Condo Litigation, Construction | Builders, Construction Litigation, Contract Disputes0 Comments

There is continuing intense activity in condominium development in Toronto, the Greater Toronto Area, Hamilton and the Niagara region. Once a condominium corporation is formed by registration of a declaration, it has a lot to do and review, within specific time lines. Getting the essential work done within those specific time lines is crucial to the protection of the rights and remedies of developers, condominium corporations and unit owners. Warranty review time lines occur at one-year, two-year and seven-year marks. If a one-year warranty claim is made, a 120-day period follows for repair or resolution by the builder. If there is no resolution and repairs are incomplete, the condominium corporation has 30 days to request conciliation or assistance with resolution of outstanding issues from the warranty provider.   The conciliation process typically involves inspection by a warranty services representative who then renders a decision as to whether the claims are … Read More

Obiter or Not? A Refresher from the Ontario Court of Appeal

Yona Gal, J.D., LL.MAppeals, Civil Litigation0 Comments

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

Prescriptive Easements in Ontario Cottage Country

Nick P. Poon, B.Sc. (Hons.), B.A., J.D.Civil Litigation, Cottage Litigation, Real Estate Litigation, Recreational Property, Recreational Property Litigation0 Comments

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

Ontario Court of Appeal: There is No Common Law Tort of Harassment

Yona Gal, J.D., LL.MAppeals, Appellate Advocacy, Civil Liability, Civil Litigation0 Comments

Merrifield v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 ONCA 205 is the first case in which a Canadian appellate court has been required to determine whether a common law tort of harassment exists. The Ontario Court of Appeal has decided that it does not. Ontario Superior Court of Justice Relying on four trial-level decisions, the trial judge held that the tort of harassment exists as a cause-of-action in Ontario and that the elements of the tort are: Outrageous conduct; Intention to cause, or reckless disregard for causing, emotional distress; Suffering of severe or extreme emotional distress; and The outrageous conduct is the actual and proximate cause of the emotional distress. Ontario Court of Appeal The Ontario Court of Appeal held that, in sum, the four trial-level decisions assume rather than establish the existence of the tort or its elements. Contrasting the case at bar with Jones v Tsige, which recognized a new … Read More

Andrew Ottaway Writes Article on CISG for Law Times

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Cross-Border Litigation, Gilbertson Davis LLP News, International Litigation, International Sale of Goods, UNCITRAL0 Comments

The Law Times recently published an article by Andrew Ottaway on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (the “CISG”). The article includes: a discussion of the recent case of Solea International BVBA v. Bassett & Walker International Inc., 2018 ONSC 4261 (CanLII), in which the Ontario Court applied the CISG; a discussion of the near total obscurity of the CISG in Ontario; examples of the notable differences between the CISG and the Ontario common law / Sale of Goods Act. The article can be read in its entirety here. The lawyers at Gilbertson Davis LLP have experience in commercial litigation, including cross-border litigation involving the CISG.  Contact us for an initial consultation.

Tests for Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering and Constructive Dismissal clarified by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Colistro v Tbaytel

Yona Gal, J.D., LL.MAppeals, Civil Litigation, Employment & Wrongful Dismissal0 Comments

In Colistro v Tbaytel, 2019 ONCA 197, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently dismissed an appeal and cross-appeal in an employment dispute. Appeal: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Suffering In the appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that three elements comprise the tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering: Flagrant or outrageous conduct; Calculated to produce harm; and Resulting in a visible and provable illness. Objective vs Subjective Following its earlier decisions in Prinzo v Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care and Piresferreira v Ayotte, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the first and third element are objective, while the second is subjective. The Court held that the second element requires the plaintiff to prove that “the defendant must have intended to produce the kind of harm that occurred or have known that it was almost certain to occur” [Boucher v Wal-Mart Canada Corp.].  It is insufficient to show only … Read More

Employee or Not? An Uber Problem to be Decided by Ontario Courts: Arbitration Not the Route

Yona Gal, J.D., LL.MAppeals, Arbitration, Arbitrators, Civil Litigation, Commercial, Contract Disputes, Employment0 Comments

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

Gilbertson Davis LLP Successfully Defends Against Appeal of Decision Enforcing Liquidated Damages in Settlement Contract

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.Appeals, Appellate Advocacy, Business Litigation, Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Contract Disputes, Fraud, Fraudulent Schemes, Gilbertson Davis LLP News, Investment Fraud, Summary Judgment0 Comments

In Haas v. Viscardi, 2019 ONCA 133, Andrew Ottaway of Gilbertson Davis LLP assisted the plaintiff in securing his settlement agreement with a defendant (in an earlier investment fraud litigation) with a liquidated damages clause.  Specifically, the defendant was required to pay $60,000 if he failed to make prompt payments under the subject settlement agreement. The defendant, after defaulting, refused to honour the liquidated damages clause.  However, on the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the motion judge upheld the liquidated damages clause and granted judgment.  Our blog post on the motion decision can be found here. On appeal, in Haas v. Viscardi, 2019 ONCA 133, the Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s argument that the liquidated damages clause was an unenforceable penalty clause, and upheld the motion judge’s decision granting summary judgment.  The Court of Appeal also enforced the provision in the settlement agreement requiring that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s … Read More

Court of Appeal Upholds Dismissal of Recognition Action Based on Limitation Period

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.Appeals, Appellate Advocacy, Business Litigation, Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Cross-Border Litigation, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Injunction & Specific Performance, Mareva Injunction, Of Interest to US Counsel0 Comments

In Grayson Consulting Inc. v. Lloyd, 2019 ONCA 79, the plaintiff obtained default judgment in South Carolina dated August 20, 2014 default judgment in the amount of US $451,435,577.37 against the defendant.   The plaintiff sought a Mareva injunction (i.e. a freezing order). Although the Court initially granted the injunction, the Court later set aside the injunction in response to the defendant’s motion arguing that the Ontario proceedings were commenced outside the limitation period.  See our blog on the motion decision here. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reiterated the applicable test from Independence Plaza 1 Associates, L.L.C. v. Figliolini, 2017 ONCA 44, being: (i) the basic two-year limitation period applies to a proceeding on a foreign judgment; and (ii) the limitation period begins to run when the time to appeal the foreign judgment has expired or, if an appeal is taken, the date of the appeal decision, unless the claim … Read More

Ontario Court Considers United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods on Summary Judgment Motion

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.Civil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Cross-Border Litigation, International Sale of Goods, Sale of Goods0 Comments

In Solea International BVBA v. Bassett & Walker International Inc., 2018 ONSC 4261, the Ontario Court of Appeal had directed the Superior Court to rehear a motion for summary judgment applying the provisions of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”), representing a rare instance of the Ontario Court explicitly considering the CISG.   The case involved the sale of shrimp by the plaintiff to the defendant.  The defendant argued, among other things, that it was not required to pay for the shrimp because the plaintiff breached a fundamental term of the contract, being provision of  a Health Certificate with a statement guaranteeing that the shrimp was free of certain diseases. The defendant argued that as a result of breach of a fundamental term, it was entitled to declare the contract avoided (pursuant to Article 49 of the CISG). In rejecting that defence, the … Read More

Court Stays Injunction Claim in Favour of Arbitration / Refuses to Consolidate Arbitration Proceedings Without Consent of All Parties

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.Arbitration, Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Arbitration, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Litigation, Contract Termination, Injunction & Specific Performance, Insurance0 Comments

In Loan Away Inc. v. Western Life Assurance Company, 2018 ONSC 7229, the plaintiff had an agreement with the defendant by which the plaintiff sold the defendant’s insurance policies in return for payments by the defendant.  The defendant ceased making payments and the plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant for an injunction to require the defendant to make the payments to the plaintiff and to prevent the defendant from terminating the insurance policies that the plaintiff had sold on the defendant’s behalf. The defendant relied upon an arbitration clause in its agreement with the plaintiff to stay the action.  The plaintiff argued, among other things, that the claim should not be stayed because the arbitration clause contained arbitration clause contained an exception for requests for a temporary restraining order or other forms of injunctive relief. The plaintiff argued that its request for a permanent injunction fell under the category … Read More

Renewal time for professional liability insurance? Mind the gap!

R. Lee Akazaki, C.S., B.A. (Hons.), J.D.Business Law, Civil Litigation, Insurance0 Comments

How can a policyholder who purchased consecutive policies of professional liability insurance lose the benefit of insurance?  On October 29, 2018, the Ontario Superior Court released its judgment in Cronnox Inc. v. Lloyd’s Underwriters, 2018 ONSC 6437 (CanLII), holding that the professional liability insurer did not owe the policyholder a duty to defend or to indemnify it in respect of a subrogated law suit.  It was the second part of an insurance coverage dispute among an engineering company, two insurers and a law firm.  In the first instalment, the same court also held earlier this year that the second insurer in the sequence was also not liable: Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Cronnox Inc., 2018 ONSC 1578 (CanLII). In September, 2013, the policyholder chose not to act on letters and emails from counsel for subrogating insurers who had paid to repair damage to a Toronto-area hotel, allegedly in the millions … Read More

Supreme Court Considers an ISP’s Right to Costs in Norwich Orders for Copyright Infringement

Peter Neufeld, B. Soc. Sc., J.D.Appeals, Appellate Advocacy, Civil Litigation, Commercial, Copyright Infringement, Intellectual Property, Norwich Order0 Comments

Norwich Orders have become a common tool to detect wrongdoers hiding behind the elusive veil of the internet. Whether the matter is with respect to defamation, intellectual property infringement, or fraud, the equitable remedy of pre-action discovery to compel Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) to disclose a wrongdoer’s identity can help claimants determine their causes of action before they commence litigation. A question that has been raised, however, is who bears the costs of the Norwich Order? Is it the claimant seeking the Norwich Order or the ISP subject to the equitable remedy? To complicate the matter further, how does this interact with an ISP’s obligations under the “notice and notice” regime pursuant to Canada’s Copyright Act? By way of background, ss. 41.25 and 41.26 of the Copyright Act govern the statutory “notice and notice” regime for alerting alleged copyright infringers in Canada. These sections under the Copyright Act state that … Read More

Andrew Ottaway Co-Chairs Continuing Legal Education Program for Ontario Bar Association

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.Civil Litigation, Gilbertson Davis LLP News0 Comments

Andrew Ottaway was the co-chair of a legal education program on pleadings for the Ontario Bar Association.  The topics covered included: Pleadings basics; Pleading complex causes of action, including fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice, conspiracy, oppression and defamation; Pleading Foreign Law; Pleading Motions, including striking the opposing party’s pleadings; and Amending Pleadings. See the complete agenda and the panel of speakers here. The lawyers at Gilbertson Davis are regularly asked to contribute to professional development programs, as chairs and speakers.

Waivers of Liability Enforced in Schnarr v Blue Mountain Resorts Ltd.

Yona Gal, J.D., LL.MCivil Litigation, Contract Disputes, Negligence0 Comments

What happens when statutes collide? In Schnarr v Blue Mountain Resorts Limited, the Ontario Court of Appeal was recently asked to bar a negligence suit by enforcing waivers of liability signed by skiers visiting a ski resort. The issues in the case clustered around the dual application of both the Occupiers’ Liability Act (“OLA“) and the Consumer Protection Act (“CPA“) to agreements between skiers and ski resorts. As an occupier of premises, ski resorts are subject to the OLA.  To encourage landowners to make their property available for recreational activities, the OLA allows for landowners to limit their liability through waivers of liability.  However, as a consumer agreement, these ski resort contracts are also governed by the CPA.  The CPA requires services supplied under a consumer agreement to be of a reasonably acceptable quality and deems waivers purporting to limit resultant liability to be void. The concurrent governance of the OLA and … Read More

Real Estate Litigation: Failure to Give Extension of Closing Date is not Bad Faith

Nick P. Poon, B.Sc. (Hons.), B.A., J.D.Certificate of Pending Litigation, Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Contract Disputes, Contract Termination, Real Estate | Developers, Real Estate Agent and Broker, Real Estate Litigation, Specific Performance, Summary Judgment0 Comments

The recent summary judgment motion decision in Time Development Group Inc. v. Bitton, 2018 ONSC 4384, involves a situation that arises quite often in failed closings of real estate transactions.  One of the main causes for an aborted real estate transaction is the failure of the purchaser to obtain the required financing to close on the transaction, possibly influenced by the Ontario Fair Housing Plan and the new mortgage lending rules. In this case,  the plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase three adjoining properties for a residential home redevelopment project.  There were a series of amendments to the agreement with the terms as follows: (a) purchase price of $10.55 million; (b) deposit of $500,000; (c) two vendor take back mortgages; and (d) closing date of July 31, 2017.  The plaintiff had secured a commitment letter to finance the transaction, however, six days before the closing date, the plaintiff was dismayed to find out that their financing had been withdrawn because the market conditions had changed.  … Read More

Canadian Court Shuts Down Loan Shark’s Law Suit

R. Lee Akazaki, C.S., B.A. (Hons.), J.D.Business Law, Business Litigation, Casino Debt Recovery, Civil Litigation, Commercial Lending, Commercial Litigation, Debt and Enforcing Judgments, Real Estate Litigation0 Comments

In Canada, it is not everyday one witnesses a loan shark resorting to judicial process to collect on outstanding obligations.  In fact, outside cases involving payday loans and hidden credit card fees, where legitimate loans might inadvertently cross the 60% interest rate threshold under s. 347 of the Criminal Code,  we have to date not seen any cases where the court has considered enforcement of blatantly usurious loans bearing interest of, say, 2,000% APR, as the Superior Court did in Ikpa v. Itamunoala, now available on line. Gilbertson Davis successfully obtained summary judgment rejecting the bid by the plaintiff, a resident of the United Kingdom (where laws banning usury no longer exist), to recover USD$500,000 on a USD$100,000 promissory note that had remained outstanding for four months before the start of litigation.  The plaintiff sought to have an equitable mortgage securing the note paid out in priority to the defendants’ registered mortgage.  … Read More