In Crisafi v. Urban Landmark Realty Inc., 2018 ONSC 191, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed a summary judgment motion brought in a real estate litigation matter and provided guidance on when the Court will use its enhanced fact-finding powers set out in the 2010 amendments. Background This case involved a claim by a real estate agent against his former real estate brokerage for unpaid real estate commissions in the amount of $60,000. The brokerage took the position that the agent breached his contractual, statutory and fiduciary duties to its clients and was negligent in handling four transactions which caused it to suffer damages. The brokerage argued that the agent failed to properly advise one of its clients while in a multiple representation situation including the anticipated sale price of the house and an estimate of whether the client could afford to purchase a subsequent property. The house ended up sitting on the market even after several reductions in the listing price. As is commonplace in the industry, this resulted in … Read More
Ontario Court Decides Motion in Loblaws Bread Price Fixing Class Action
The recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in David v. Loblaw, 2018 ONSC 198, involved a motion brought by the plaintiff to challenge the terms of a $25 consumer card program that the Loblaw defendants (“Loblaws”) had offered to consumers after various class actions were commenced in connection to a bread price fixing scheme that Loblaws participated in from 2002 to 2015. Customers may sign up for the consumer card, either online or by paper application, by declaring that he or she had purchased bread from Loblaws during the relevant time period. The application advised customers that sign up for the consumer card that they will still be eligible to receive “incremental compensation” and recommended they seek legal advice from plaintiff’s counsel or from independent counsel. The application also included a form of Release, which read in part as follows: In exchange for this twenty-five (25) Canadian Dollar Loblaw Card you hereby release and forever discharge Loblaw … Read More
Court of Appeal Allows Negligence Claim Against Individual Starbucks Employees to Proceed
In Sataur v. Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc., 2017 ONCA 1017, the plaintiff alleged that a Starbucks barista poured scalding water on the plaintiff’s hands. The plaintiff sued Starbucks, and also brought claims against the barista and the Starbucks store manager personally. The plaintiff alleged that the barista and the store manager owed the plaintiff a duty of care and that each was personally liable to the plaintiff for breaching those duties. Starbucks brought a motion to strike the plaintiff’s claims against the barista and store manager on the basis that, among others, the plaintiff could not claim against them personally. The motion judge agreed, stating that employees are not liable for acts within the scope of their authority and done on behalf of their corporation. The motion judge struck the plaintiff’s claims against the barista and store manager. The plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeal, citing the Supreme Court of Canada’s … Read More
Court of Appeal Considers Scope of Errors of Jurisdiction under Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
In Consolidated Contractors Group S.A.L. (Offshore) v. Ambatovy Minerals S.A., 2017 ONCA 939, the respondent was constructing a mine. The appellant was contracted by the respondent to build a pipeline. The construction contract contained a three stage dispute resolution process, being: 1) disputes were to be determined by the respondent’s supervising engineer; 2) if the dispute was not resolved, it would be referred to adjudication by a sole adjudicator; and 3) if a party did not accept the adjudication, it could refer the dispute to arbitration pursuant to the International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.9, which incorporates the Model Law. Problems arose in the project. The appellant alleged that the respondent had breached the contract. The appellant sought an extension of the time for performance, compensation for its costs arising from delay, and compensation for additional work. The appellant submitted its claims to the respondent’s engineer for … Read More
Touchdown! University Football Team Scores Interim Interlocutory Injunction
In Saint Mary’s University v. U SPORTS, 2017 ONSC 6749, Justice Archibald of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently decided an urgent interim interlocutory injunction brought by Saint Mary’s University to enjoin U SPORTS from releasing its ruling on the eligibility of a Saint Mary’s football player. Background U SPORTS is the national sport governing body of university sports in Canada and has established by-laws and policies to regulate, amongst other issues, the eligibility of student-athletes to participate in university football competition. One of those policies states that “an athlete’s name [that] appears, with his acquiescence, on a [CFL] practice roster … or such other list that directly or indirectly confers a monetary benefit to the athlete” is prohibited from participating in university sports “within one year” of CFL participation. It was not disputed by the parties that the football player was on a CFL non-active practice roster from September 14, 2016 to October 11, … Read More
Ontario Court Finds Jurisdiction Resulting From Cumulative Effect of Individually Insufficient Connecting Factors
In Freshway Services Inc. v. CdEnviro Ltd., 2017 ONSC 6591, the plaintiff Ontario company contracted with the defendant Northern Irish company. The defendant was to build a waste recycling facility and install it at the plaintiff’s facility in Ontario. A third party to provide warranty coverage and servicing for components of the waste recycling plant, once it was built and delivered to Ontario. A dispute arose between the parties, and the plaintiff sued the defendant in Ontario. The defendant brought a motion to stay the Ontario action on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction. The motion judge considered the the presumptive connecting factors for jurisdiction set out by the Supreme Court in Club Resorts Ltd. v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, being whether the contract was made in the Ontario: whether the defendant was carrying on actual business in Ontario; whether the defendant is resident in Ontario; or where the … Read More
Use At Your Own Risk: Partial Summary Judgment Motions
The Ontario Court of Appeal in Butera v. Chown, Cairns LLP, 2017 ONCA 783, recently overturned an award of partial summary judgment in a professional negligence action and provided guidance on the appropriate circumstances in which partial summary judgment motions should be brought. In the original action, the plaintiffs brought an action against various Mitsubishi companies after their Mitsubishi dealership franchise failed, claiming damages for breach of contract, misrepresentation, negligence and breaches of the Arthur Wishart Act. The original action was dismissed on summary judgment because the applicable two-year limitation period had passed. The plaintiffs were also ordered to pay $150,000 in costs for both the action and the summary judgment motion. The plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment motion decision and argued that a six-year limitation period was applicable notwithstanding that they had conceded at the motion that the applicable limitation period was two years. The appeal was dismissed. The plaintiffs then brought the subject action against their former lawyers for negligence. The plaintiffs claimed damages for … Read More
Court of Appeal States that Security for Costs Should Not be Treated Differently for Recognition and Enforcement Actions
Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation, 2017 ONCA 741 arose from an action by the Plaintiffs to enforce an Ecuadorean judgment in Ontario against the Defendant. The Defendants obtained summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claim. After the Plaintiffs appealed, the Defendant sought a security for costs against the Plaintiffs, who were non-Ontario residents from Ecuador. The Plaintiffs argued that security for costs should not be ordered because of, among other reasons, the unique nature of a recognition and enforcement action. The Plaintiffs relied on the Supreme Court of Canada decision on jurisdiction in the same action: Chevron Corp v. Yaiguaje, 2015 SCC 42, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 69. The Plaintiffs argued that the Supreme Court’s decision required courts to treat recognition and enforcement cases in a different manner than first instance actions. The Court of Appeal confirmed that courts should take a “generous” approach in finding jurisdiction in recognition and enforcement actions. … Read More
Court of Appeal Confirms Retrospective Application of Amendments to Prejudgment Interest, Statutory Deductible and Costs Considerations
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released the much anticipated decision in Cobb v. Long Estate, 2017 ONCA 717, which addressed the issue of whether legislative amendments in 2015 to prejudgment interest on non-pecuniary damages, statutory deductible and costs considerations apply retrospectively in motor vehicle accident litigation. Ever since Gilbertson Davis LLP’s blog post in November 2014, judges in the Superior Court of Justice and Divisional Court have made divergent rulings on this issue including retrospective application, prospective application and relying on their discretion for something in between. This appellate decision provides much needed guidance and clarity to the claimants, counsel and insurance companies in tort actions involving motor vehicle accidents. Although it is unknown at this time whether the Plaintiff intends to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, it is safe to assume that will be the case given the significance of this decision. Prejudgment Interest for Non-Pecuniary Damages On January 1, 2015, the Insurance Act was amended to change the prejudgment interest for non-pecuniary damages from 5% … Read More
Andrew Ottaway provides commentary to Global News about online defamation
Andrew Ottaway was asked to comment about online defamation and the potential risks of posting material online. See the video here. The lawyers at Gilbertson Davis have experience with libel and slander claims, including online defamation. Please contact us for an initial consultation.
New Measures of Ontario’s Fair Housing Plan Take Effect Today
On April 20, 2017, Ontario’s Fair Housing Plan was announced by the current Ontario government in an attempt to cool the housing market and make housing more affordable, particularly in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). It has been widely reported that the average purchase price for all types of homes in the GTA has dropped significantly since the announcement. Most of the attention on the housing affordability plan has been focused on the 15 percent Non-Resident Speculation Tax (NRST) imposed on the purchase or acquisition of an interest in residential real estate by a foreign individual, foreign corporation or a taxable trustee. The NRST only applies to residential real estate, containing one to six single family residences, located in the region around Toronto known as the Greater Golden Horseshoe which includes Barrie, Brant, Dufferin, Durham, Guelph, Haldimand, Halton, Hamilton, Kawartha Lakes, Niagara, Northumberland, Peel, Peterborough, Simcoe, Toronto, Waterloo, Wellington and York. There are certain exemptions and rebates to the NRST available including circumstances where: (a) the foreign individual jointly purchases the property with a … Read More
Andrew Ottaway Writes Article for JUST Magazine on Online Dispute Resolution
Andrew Ottaway published an article in JUST Magazine on the recent phenomenon of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), and its likely effects on the Ontario justice system: “ODR matters because it is just one part of a greater trend towards taking litigation online.” The full article is available here.
Court of Appeal Provides Guidance on Interpretation of Success Fee Contract
In RBC Dominion Securities Inc. v. Crew Gold Corporation, 2017 ONCA 648, the Plaintiffs (“RBC”) sued the Defendant (“Crew”) for a success fee (the “Success Fee,”) that RBC alleged it was owed under an agreement for the provision of investment banking services (the “Agreement”). The Agreement provided, among other things, that RBC was entitled to the Success Fee “if a Transaction [was] completed involving any party, whether or not solicited by RBC, pursuant to an agreement to effect or otherwise complete a Transaction entered into during the term of its engagement […]”. RBC provided certain services under the Agreement. During the course of the Agreement, Crew was subject to a takeover. The takeover was not anticipated by either party. RBC was not involved in the takeover transaction. The issue at trial was whether RBC was entitled to the Success Fee for its services. The trial judge found that the … Read More
Court Awards Damages to Defendant in Defamation Case
In United Soils Management Inc. v. Mohammed, 2017 ONSC 4450, the Plaintiff operated a gravel pit in the municipality of Whitchurch-Stouffville. The municipal council voted to allow the Plaintiff to deposit fill onto certain sites. The Defendant was a member of the community, who was concerned about contamination from the deposits. The Defendant posted on the internet regarding her concerns. The Plaintiff demanded that the Defendant cease posting and apologize. In response, the Defendant posted a retraction and apology. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff commenced a claim against the Defendant claiming damages for defamation. The Defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action under section 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, a provision resulting from the Anti-SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation) legislation. Section 137.1(3) requires the Court to dismiss claims where the Defendant proves that the proceeding arises from “expression” related to “a matter of public interest”, subject … Read More
Court of Appeal Confirms Defamation Notice Periods Apply to Online Newspapers
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released its decision in John v. Ballingall, et al, 2017 ONCA 579, which confirmed that online versions of newspapers are subject to the protections found in Ontario’s Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12 (the “Act”). The Act provides for certain notice and limitation periods, which if not met, may act as a bar for any future defamation actions. Specifically, Section 5(1) of the Act provides that no action for libel in a “newspaper” or “broadcast” lies unless the plaintiff has, within six weeks after the alleged libel has come to the plaintiff’s knowledge, given the defendant notice in writing of the specific matter complained of. Section 6 of the Act provides that an action for libel in a “newspaper” or “broadcast” shall be commenced within three months after the libel has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff. In this decision, the plaintiff (a rapper known as Avalanche the Architect) commenced an action for libel against the Toronto Star because … Read More
Supreme Court Provides Guidance on Oppression Remedy
In Wilson v. Alharayeri, 2017 SCC 39, The Plaintiff, Alharayeri, was the president, CEO and a shareholder and a director of the subject Corporation. The subject corporation was incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”). In addition to common shares, the Defendant held convertible A and B preferred shares issued only to him as performance-based incentives. The A and B shares were convertible upon the corporation meeting certain performance targets in 2007. The Plaintiff held convertible C preferred shares, issued to him as an incentive for finding financing. The C shares were convertible into common shares upon the Corporation meeting a specific financial target. In early 2007, the Defendant, Wilson, began negotiating a merger with Company M to address the Corporation’s cash flow issues. At the same time, the Defendant arranged to sell some of his common shares to Company M as a result of personal financial difficulties. The Corporation’s Board … Read More
Ontario Court Identifies New Presumptive Connecting Factor in Establishing Jurisdiction
In Arend v Boehm, 2017 ONSC 3424, the three Applicants in a corporate dispute applied for orders pursuant to the oppression remedy (section 248) of the Ontario Business Corporations Act in respect of BitRush, an Ontario company. The Judge noted that BitRush’s business was “reflective of the worldwide impact of business connected with the internet.” The international character of BitRush’s business was reflected in the identity of the Respondents, who were: 1) BitRush’s CEO, an Austrian resident; 2) a former BitRush board member, also an Austrian resident; 3) BitRush’s majority shareholder, a UK company; and 4) another Austrian resident. The Applicants sought: 1) a declaration that the Respondent CEO has acted oppressively, in breach of his fiduciary duty to BitRush; 2) an order transferring shares of BitRush from the Respondent UK company to certain other stakeholders; and 3) an order that the Respondent UK company’s remaining shares in BitRush be … Read More