Toronto Condo Arbitrator – Independent, Affordable and Available

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Lawyer and ArbitratorCommercial0 Comments

David Alderson, LL.B., LL.M, Q.Arb –  Condo Dispute Arbitrator David has been accredited by the ADR Institute as Canada as a Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb). He accepts appointments as a commercial arbitrator, including as condominium dispute arbitrator, at reasonable hourly rates (from $350.00 per hour, plus facilities and applicable taxes) and with good availability. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has appointed David in commercial (including condominium) arbitration matters. David is a member of the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society, and has successfully completed the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society Gold Standard Course in Commercial Arbitration. He is also a Full Member of the ADR Institute of Ontario and appears in its Member Directory. He has legal experience in arbitration in under different institutional and ad hoc rules, in a wide variety of matters.  David accepts appointment as sole arbitrator and party-appointed arbitrator in a wide variety of condominium disputes. David has appeared as a barrister in the … Read More

Gilbertson Davis Welcomes Fatima Vieira!

John L. Davis, B.A. (Hons.), J.D.Commercial0 Comments

It is with great pleasure that Gilbertson Davis LLP announces that Senior Commercial & Insurance Litigation & Arbitration Lawyer Fatima Vieira has joined the Firm.  Fatima obtained her LL.B.  degree from Queen’s University at Kingston (2001) and holds an M.A. degree in Public Administration from University of Toronto (1994-1995) as well as Bachelor of Liberal Arts, Government degree  from Harvard University (1990-94; Dean’s List, 1991-94).  She was called to the Bar in Ontario in 2002, and has acquired over 17 years of litigation and arbitration experience, most of which has been in private practice with an emphasis on insurance and commercial litigation and arbitration.  Fatima has a particular practice interest and focus in Condominium Law.  Fatima has extensive litigation experience including participation in trials and appeals, and also appearances before administrative tribunals.  Details of her various reported cases are found here.  Fatima is a highly skilled litigator who is dedicated … Read More

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

Commercial Lease Dispute Arbitrator – Leasing Disputes and Rent Arbitration

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Lawyer and ArbitratorCommercial0 Comments

David Alderson, LL.B., LL.M, Q.Arb – Arbitrator for Commercial Lease Disputes David has been accredited by the ADR Institute as Canada as a Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb). He accepts appointments as a commercial arbitrator, including as commercial lease dispute arbitrator, at reasonable hourly rates and with good availability.   The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has appointed David in commercial arbitration matters. David is a member of the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society, and has successfully completed the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society Gold Standard Course in Commercial Arbitration. He is also a Full Member of the ADR Institute of Ontario and appears in its Member Directory. Local Experience David has appeared as a barrister in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (including the Commercial List), the Divisional Court, the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Federal Court (Canada), Federal Court of Appeal (Canada) and as co-counsel in the Supreme Court of Canada. Preferred Arbitration Appointments He has legal experience … Read More

Toronto Arbitrator for Shareholder Disputes, Partnership Disputes and Property Disputes

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Lawyer and ArbitratorCommercial0 Comments

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M, Q.Arb: Commercial Arbitrator for Shareholder Disputes, Partnership Disputes and  Joint Venture Disputes David has been accredited by the ADR Institute as Canada as a Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb). He accepts appointments as a commercial arbitrator (sole arbitrator and party appointee) at reasonable hourly rates and with good availability.        The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has appointed David as arbitrator in commercial arbitration matters. David is a member of the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society, and has successfully completed the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society Gold Standard Course in Commercial Arbitration. He is also a Full Member of the ADR Institute of Ontario and appears in its Member Directory. David has lived and practiced business  litigation and arbitration in Ontario, England, Bermuda and Dubai, in a wide variety of disputes in a diverse range of businesses and industries.  He is also admitted in New York State. His LL.B (Osgoode) and LL.M (Lond.) Commercial … Read More

Court of Appeal Analyzes Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.Commercial0 Comments

In Forbes Energy Group Inc. v. Parsian Energy Rad Gas, 2019 ONCA 372 (CanLII), the plaintiff commenced an action seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to make payments to the defendants under a contract. The contract contained a clause stating that it was “governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and the Parties agree to attorn to the courts of England”.  The defendants sought to stay the action on the basis of that clause in favour of the courts of England. The motion judge granted a stay, finding that the plaintiff had failed to meet the test to displace a forum selection clause: to demonstrate “strong cause” that the clause should not be enforced. On appeal, the Court of Appeal stated the “strong cause” test only applies to forum selection clauses that grant exclusive jurisdiction to a foreign jurisdiction.  The motion judge did not … Read More

Are Section 44 Exam Reports under SABS Subject to PIPEDA Disclosure?

R. Lee Akazaki, C.S., B.A. (Hons.), J.D.Accident Benefits, Administrative Law, Commercial, Privacy0 Comments

To date, the Ontario personal injury bar has assumed that assessors and “IME” companies performing examinations under s. 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) are subject to access requirements under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).   The “leading case” on IME’s and PIPEDA, Wyndowe v. Rousseau, a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, held that a doctor appointed to perform an independent medical examination under a disability insurance policy had to provide access to a final report and notes.  The disability insurer’s internal process under the private insurance policy would not have been a formal dispute resolution process and therefore not exempt from PIPEDA. Under clause 9(3)(d) of PIPEDA, an organization is not required to give access to personal information if it was “generated in the course of a formal dispute resolution process.”  Is a s. 44 examination subject to that exemption?  The federal Office of the Privacy … Read More

Court Clarifies “Clean Hands” Doctrine Applies to Post-Breach Conduct

Yona Gal, J.D., LL.MCommercial, Commercial Leasing0 Comments

In 232702 Ontario v 1305 Dundas, 2019 ONSC 1885, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently considered the “clean hands” doctrine in the context of a terminated commercial lease for non-payment of rent. Importantly, the Court clarified that the doctrine of “clean hands” is not restricted to conduct occurring prior to the breach, but encompasses subsequent conduct as well. The Test for Relief from Forfeiture Under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act and s. 20 of the Commercial Tenancies Act, a court may grant relief from forfeiture, including forfeiture of a lease for non-payment of rent. The court’s power to relieve from forfeiture is an equitable remedy.  It is discretionary, fact-specific and granted sparingly.  The party seeking relief must prove that enforcing the contractual right would lead to inequitable consequences. In Saskatchewan River Bungalows Ltd. v Maritime Life Assurance Co., the Supreme Court of Canada held that a … 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

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

Ontario Court of Appeal Considers Contractual Duty of Good Faith

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.Commercial0 Comments

In CM Callow Inc. v. Zollinger, 2018 ONCA 896 (CanLII) the plaintiff company provided maintenance services to condos managed by the defendant condo corporations. The defendants entered in two two-year maintenance contracts with the plaintiff: one for summer maintenance and one for winter maintenance.  The winter contract (which ran from November 2012 to April 2014) allowed for early termination by the defendants on 10 days’ notice. In March or April of 2013, the defendants decided to terminate the winter contract, but did not provide notice of termination of the agreement until September 12, 2013.  The defendants delayed informing the plaintiff that they were terminating the contract in order to avoid interfering with the defendant’s work under the summer contract (which ran from May 2012 to October 2013).  The plaintiff provided free work in the summer of 2013 as an incentive for the defendants to renew the contracts. The defendants knew … 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

Ontario Court Finds No Jurisdiction in Multinational Class-Action against Volkswagen

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.Commercial0 Comments

In Leon v. Volkswagen AG, 2018 ONSC 4265 (CanLII), the plaintiff, who resides in Ontario, purchased American Deposit Receipts (ADRs) in respect of Volkswagen shares. The Volkswagen shares plummeted when Volkswagen disclosed that it had perpetrated fraud. Owners of the common shares commenced proceedings in Germany.  The plaintiff initially commenced a class action in respect of his ADRs in New Jersey. The plaintiff conceded in the New Jersey action that the US Federal Court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim and that the venue was proper. However, the plaintiff later withdrew from the US proceedings and commenced the subject class action in Ontario.  The Ontario class action included Ontario purchasers of the ADRs and of common shares (unlike the US proceedings, which were in respect of ADR purchasers only).   Volkswagen brought a motion to dismiss the action on the basis that Ontario did not have jurisdiction … Read More

Federal Court of Appeal Considers Reviewing of Evidence in Judicial Review Applications

Peter Neufeld, B. Soc. Sc., J.D.Administrative Law, Appeals, Business Litigation, Civil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial Litigation, Judicial Review0 Comments

In judicial review applications, like most legal proceedings, evidence plays an essential role in securing a successful result. This includes not just the quality of the evidence, but the process through which the court considers that evidence. The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Health), 2018 FCA 147 (“Apotex”) affirms the control accorded to judges when reviewing evidence in judicial review applications.

Court of Appeal Considers Ontario Labour Relations Board’s Jurisdiction, Limitation Periods in Class Actions

Peter Neufeld, B. Soc. Sc., J.D.Administrative Law, Appeals, Civil Litigation, Class Action Defence, Commercial, Employment, Employment & Wrongful Dismissal, Jurisdictional Challenges, Tribunals, Wrongful Dismissal0 Comments

In United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, Local 175, Region 6 v. Quality Meat Packers Holdings Limited, 2018 ONCA 671 (“Quality Meat Packers”), the Ontario Court of Appeal considered (1) the Ontario Labour Relations Board’s (“OLRB”) jurisdiction to decide claims related to the wrongful dismissal of unionized employees; and (2) whether, in proposed representative proceedings under Rules 12.08 and 10.01, representation orders must be obtained during the limitation periods for the individuals’ claims.

When is Oral Evidence Required to Resolve Credibility Issues in Summary Judgment Motions?

Nick P. Poon, B.Sc. (Hons.), B.A., J.D.Appeals, Business Litigation, Civil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Contract Termination, Franchise | Licensing, Franchise Law, Summary Judgment0 Comments

The Ontario Court of Appeal decision in 2212886 Ontario Inc. v. Obsidian Group Inc., 2018 ONCA 670, involved the appeal of a partial summary judgment decision in a dispute between the franchisor and a franchisee of Crabby Joe’s Tap and Grill.  In this case, the franchisee operated a Crabby Joe’s franchise for a year and a half prior to serving a notice of rescission of the franchise agreement on the franchisor. Claims The franchisee claimed that the disclosure document provided was materially deficient and it was entitled to rescind the franchise agreement within two years of execution of the franchise agreement under section 6(2) of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclousre), 2000 (“the Act”).   The franchisee claimed for rescission damages under section 6(6) of the Act and also damages for breach of contract and breach of the fair dealing obligations under the Act.  In response, the franchisor brought a counterclaim for a declaration that the franchise agreement was validly terminated and a … Read More

Entire Agreement Clause Upheld in Manorgate Estates Inc. v. Kirkor Architects and Planners

Janice Perri, B.A. (Summa Cum Laude)Appeals, Appellate Advocacy, Business Torts | Economic Torts, Civil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation, Construction | Builders, Construction Litigation, Contract Disputes, Misrepresentation, Negligence, Real Estate | Developers, Real Estate Litigation0 Comments

Entire Agreement Clauses are meant to prevent negotiations that occurred prior to the contract being formed from influencing the Court’s interpretation of the terms set out in the final contract. In other words, past discussions are to have no bearing on the understanding of the contractual terms. In theory, a fully integrated agreement of this kind supplants any earlier oral or written agreements. There is competing jurisprudence in which Entire Agreement Clauses have been both effective and ineffective. However, Manograte Estates Inc. v. Kirkor Architects and Planners is a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision where an Entire Agreement Clause was effective. In Manograte Estates Inc. v. Kirkor Architects and Planners, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the Motion Judge’s decision that the Entire Agreement Clause in the relevant agreement, regarding architectural consulting for a construction project, operated as a complete defence to the appellants’ claim of alleged negligent misrepresentation. The Entire Agreement Clause … Read More