Court Stays Action in Favour of Mexico Arbitration

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.Civil Litigation, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Cross-Border Litigation, Employment & Wrongful Dismissal0 Comments

In Kavanagh v. Magna, the Plaintiff alleged that he was wrongfully dismissed by his Mexican employer.  The Plaintiff sued an Ontario affiliate company of his Mexican employer in the Ontario Courts.  The Plaintiff had also brought an arbitration proceeding against his Mexican employer in the Mexico.  The Defendants sought to have the Ontario action dismissed on the grounds that the Ontario Courts lacked jurisdiction of over the dispute.  The Ontario Court applied a two part test considering i) whether it had jurisdiction, and ii) whether it should assume jurisdiction. i) The Ontario Court found that the dispute did not have a “real and substantial connection” to Ontario: the Plaintiff signed his employment contract in Mexico, worked in Mexico, and was terminated in Mexico.   There was also a clause in his employment contract agreeing to resolve disputes in accordance with the laws of Mexico.   Nevertheless, the Judge found that the Ontario … Read More

License to use “Marilyn Monroe” Trade-mark is not a Franchise Agreement

Nick P. Poon, B.Sc. (Hons.), B.A., J.D.Civil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Franchise Law0 Comments

In MGDC Management Group Inc. v. Marilyn Monroe Estate, 2014 ONSC 4584, the Respondents and Applicants were parties to a License Agreement which granted to the Applicants the exclusive right to use the trademark “Marilyn Monroe” in its restaurants.  The Applicants sought rescission of the License Agreement by claiming that the License Agreement qualifed as a franchise agreement which entitled it to receive full disclosure under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 (the “Act”).  The Respondents moved to dismiss the Application. Justice Morgan of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the Act did not apply to the License Agreement for the following reasons: The parties expressly agreed that franchise disclosure laws such as the Act did not apply to the License Agreement.  And, in fact, the principal of the Applicants acknowledged that she was aware of this provision when she signed the License Agreement. Section 2(3)5 of the Act stated that it does not apply to a single trade-mark licensing agreement.  The … Read More

London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) – New Rules Include Expanded Provisions on Emergency Relief

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer and ArbitratorArbitration, Business Litigation, Commercial Arbitration, Commercial Litigation, Copyright Infringement, Cross-Border Litigation, Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Fashion Industry, Industrial Design, Injunction & Specific Performance, Intellectual Property, International Sale of Goods, Mareva Injunction, Of Interest to US Counsel, Preservation Orders, Textiles and Apparel0 Comments

The London Court of International Arbitration has announced that its new LCIA Arbitration Rules have been formally adopted by the LCIA Court and the LCIA Board of Directors and will come into effect on 1 October 2014. Article 9B of the new LCIA Arbitration Rules – Emergency Arbitrator provides that in the case of emergency at any time prior to the formation or expedited formation of the Arbitral Tribunal , any party may apply to the LCIA Court for the immediate appointment of a temporary sole arbitrator to conduct emergency proceedings pending the formation or expedited formation of the Arbitral Tribunal. By Article 9.14 of the New Rules, Article 9B does not apply where the parties have concluded their arbitration agreement before 1 October 2014 have not agreed in writing to ‘opt in’ to Article 9B, or the parties have agreed in writing at any time to ‘opt out’ of Article 9B. Reference should be had in this regard to … Read More

International Sale of Goods Convention – New Members in 2014 and 2015

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer and ArbitratorCivil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Arbitration, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Creditors Rights, Cross-Border Litigation, Distributors | Dealers, Forum Challenges, International Distribution, International Sale of Goods, Jurisdictional Challenges, Sale of Goods0 Comments

The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”) establishes a comprehensive code of legal rules governing the formation of contracts for the international sale of goods, the obligations of the buyer and seller in contracts for the international sale of goods, and the remedies for breach of contracts for the international sale of goods. Canada on accession to the CISG declared that, in accordance with article 93 of the Convention, the Convention would extend to Ontario (and other provinces named in the declaration). The Canadian International Sale of Goods Contracts Convention Act, S.C. 1991, c. 13, has been in effect in Ontario since 1992 because of the International Sale of Goods Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.10.  These two acts brought into effect in Canada the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. The Ontario International Sale of Goods Act provides that the contracting parties “may … Read More

Court Grants Ex Parte Injunction Against Pipeline Protesters

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.Civil Litigation, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation, Injunction & Specific Performance0 Comments

In Enbridge Pipelines Inc. v. Jane Doe, the Applicant had an easement through a property for its gas pipeline.  The protesters (according to their social media postings) opposed further construction on the pipeline, and occupied and refused to leave the property.  The Applicant brought an ex parte (without notice) application for an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the protesters from occupying a work site on the property. The Applicant argued i) that the work on the pipeline was an immediate safety concern, ii) that any delay caused by the protesters would have serious impact on its economic concerns (the supply of oil to its customers), and iii) that the Applicant’s property rights  – the easement – were in a “privileged position”, and that a trespass to property rights is virtually always remedied by an injunction. The Judge found with respect to i) that there was not an immediate safety concern, but with respect to ii) … Read More

Franchise Rescission Granted Due to Deficient Disclosure

Nick P. Poon, B.Sc. (Hons.), B.A., J.D.Civil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation, Franchise Law, Summary Judgment0 Comments

The recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in 2337310 Ontario Inc. v. 2264145 Ontario Inc., 2014 ONSC 4370, addressed a partial summary judgment motion brought by the franchisee of a cafe seeking a declaration that it was entitled to exercise its right of rescission under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 (“the Act”). The franchisee sought to rescind the franchise agreement approximately six months after entering into the agreement by arguing that the disclosure document provided by the franchisor was so deficient that it amounted to receving no disclosure at all.  In contrast, the franchisor argued that the franchisee was provided with disclosure as required under the Act, and the franchisee was simply attempting to resile from a bona fide transaction due to its own incompetence and inability to operate the business successfully. The Court found a number of deficiencies in the disclosure provided by the franchisor, including failure to provide: (1) … Read More

Partial Summary Judgment Granted for Rescission of Franchise Agreement

Nick P. Poon, B.Sc. (Hons.), B.A., J.D.Civil Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Franchise Law, Summary Judgment0 Comments

In the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in 2147191 Ontario Inc. v. Springdale Pizza Depot Ltd., the plaintiffs brought a partial summary judgment motion seeking to rescind a franchise agreement under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 (the “Act”).  After purchasing the business from an existing franchisee, the plaintiffs alleged that they were entitled to receive disclosure from the franchisor but the disclosure received was so materially deficient that it amounted to no disclosure at all.  As a result, the plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to rescind the franchise agreement within two years of entering into the franchise agreement.  The defendant franchisor argued that it was not required to provide disclosure to the plaintiffs due to its minimal involvement in the sale transaction, or in the alternative, it provided satisfactory if imperfect disclosure which would only entitle the plaintiffs to rescind the franchise agreement within sixty days of receiving the disclosure documents (which had elapsed). Under subsections 5(7) and 5(8) … Read More

Scooter Wars – Defamation Strikes Back

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.Commercial Litigation, Injunction & Specific Performance, Summary Judgment0 Comments

In Motoretta v. Twist & Go Power Sports, the Plaintiff and Defendant are two rival GTA scooter stores, engaged in what the Judge called the “Toronto Scooter Wars”.  The Defendant’s Vespa dealership was terminated by the Canadian Vespa distributor.  The Plaintiff remained an authorized Vespa dealer.  The Plaintiff was suspicious that the Defendant had “bad-mouthed” it to customers on an ongoing basis.  In response, the Plaintiff hired private investigators to pose as customers at the Defendant’s store.  The private investigators recorded their conversations with the Defendant, which the Plaintiff alleged were defamatory. The Plaintiff scooter store brought an action for damages for defamation, and for a permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendant from further defaming the Plaintiff.  The action was determined by summary judgment. The Judge found that the Defendant’s statements to the private investigators had defamed the Plaintiff.  The Defendant argued that the statements did not meet the legal test of defamation because … Read More

Court of Appeal on Restrictive Covenant on Dissolution of Partnership

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer and ArbitratorBusiness Litigation, Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Contract Termination, Joint Venture Disputes, Partnership Dispute, Partnerships and Shareholder Disputes0 Comments

The Court of Appeal for Ontario released its decision on February 11, 2014, in  Greenaway v Sovran 2014 ONCA 110 on the appeal by a “withdrawing” partner  of a two-member firm from the decision of the Superior Court of Justice on an application to determine the enforceability of a “restrictive covenant” in their partnership agreement. The application judge found that the two-member firm partnership had been dissolved and declared the restrictive covenant unenforceable as a penalty, but directed a trial of an issue to determine the damages payable by the appellant as a result of a breach of the portion of the portion of the covenant he found valid and severable – the withdrawal having triggered a clause in the agreement which called for the reduction of the withdrawing partner’s capital account “by 500% of the average fees billed by the firm to clients who transfer to the withdrawing partner within 24 … Read More

Summary Judgment in the Supreme Court of Canada: Hryniak v Mauldin and Its Implications

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer and ArbitratorAppeals, Appellate Advocacy, Civil Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Gilbertson Davis LLP News, Summary Judgment0 Comments

On March 26, 2014, David Alderson, lawyer with Gilbertson Davis LLP was the Chair / Moderator of Osgoode Hall Law School’s webinar entitled Summary Judgment in the Supreme Court of Canada: Hryniak v Mauldin and Its Implications. The panelists were the Honourable Justice David M. Brown, Superior Court of Justice (Ontario), Professor Janet Walker, Osgoode Hall Law School and Cynthia B. Kuehl, Lerners LLP. A link to the agenda of the Osgoode PD Webinar Summary Judgment in the Supreme Court of Canada: Hryniak v Mauldin and Its Implications is here. David Alderson was one of the counsel for the successful respondents in the Supreme Court of Canada. The related Gilbertson Davis LLP Practice Area is described here.

Summary Judgment in Wrongful Dismissal Action in IT Sector

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer and ArbitratorBusiness Litigation, Civil Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Contract Termination, Employment, Employment & Wrongful Dismissal, Information Technology, Start-Up Disputes, Summary Judgment, Technology and Internet, Wrongful Dismissal0 Comments

The plaintiff in Wellman v. The Herjavec Group Inc., 2014 ONSC 2039, whose employment with the defendant was terminated without cause after one week short of a year, was granted summary judgment and found to be entitled to damages from the defendant for wrongful dismissal on the basis of a reasonable notice period of four months. The parties had agreed that the issue of a reasonable notice could be properly considered on a motion for summary judgment and the court agreed that such a motion is more proportionate, more expeditious less expensive means than a trial to achieve a just result (citing Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7) In considering the issue the court considered the: Bardal factors; the age of the employee (including when considering mitigation it is reasonable to assume that at the plaintiff’s age there could have family responsibilities that might make him less mobile); length of service (just one factor to be taken … Read More