International Commercial Arbitration Laws – Greater Harmonization

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer and ArbitratorArbitration, Arbitrators, Casino Debt Recovery, Commercial, Commercial Arbitration, Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York Convention, UNCITRAL0 Comments

Legislation based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), with amendments as adopted in 2006 (the “Model Law”) has been adopted in 80 States in a total of 111 jurisdictions, including Canada, Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Yukon. The legislation in Ontario, Canada, amends previous legislation based on the Model Law and is based on the text, with amendments as adopted in 2006, of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Recent jurisdictions to enact Model Law legislation include: In 2018: British Columbia (the legislation amends previous legislation based on the Model Law). In 2017: Australian Capital Territory, Fiji, Jamaica, Mongolia, Qatar, and South Africa. In 2016: Myanmar, Republic of Korea, and Uganda. The continued expansion of an already substantial number of jurisdictions enacting Model Law legislation means even greater harmonization of national laws through all stages … Read More

Service of Foreign Process (including U.S. Proceedings) in Ontario, Canada

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer and ArbitratorCasino Debt Recovery, Commercial, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Cross-Border Litigation, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Hague Conventions, Import | Export, International Litigation, International Sale of Goods, International Traders, Of Interest to US Counsel, Request for International Judicial Assistance0 Comments

Since 1989 Canada has been a member of Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, (the Hague Service Convention). The Hague Service Convention requires its member States to designate a “Central Authority” to accept incoming requests for service. The Central Authority in Canada, on the federal level, is the Attorney General for Canada, and the Central Authority on the provincial level, in Ontario is the Attorney General, the Ministry of the Attorney General or the Minister of Justice. In Ontario, service of foreign proceeding under the Hague Service Convention requires that a completed Request for Service Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents Form together with the prescribed number of originating process documents and prescribed fee to the Ministry of the Attorney General for Ontario. There are alternatives to the Hague Service Convention service of foreign process in Ontario. If you are seeking advice or … Read More

Fork In the Road: Critical Considerations by Condominium Corporations in Anticipatory Failed Closings

Gilbertson Davis LLPAppeals, Appellate Advocacy, Civil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial Contracts, Condo Construction, Condo Litigation, Contract Disputes, Real Estate Litigation0 Comments

In 1179 Hunt Club Inc. v. Ottawa Medical Square Inc., 2019 ONCA 700, the purchasers, Ottawa Medical Square Group, entered into an Agreement for Purchase and Sale to purchase condominium units owned by the vendor, 1179 Hunt Club Inc. The value of the commercial condominium units in the Hunt Club Project was $5.6 million dollars. Five days before closing, the purchasers, sent a request to the vendor, requesting an extension of time as the purchasers had not yet finalized their arrangements for financing. Three days before closing, the vendor advised that it would insist on closing, and if the purchaser could not close, it would exercise its rights and remedies under the Agreement for Purchase and Sale. On the date of closing, the vendor learned that the Land Registry Office had made an error in assigning parcel identification numbers. Although this error was ameliorated later that day, this mishap, prevented … Read More

David Street to facilitate at the Law Society of Ontario’s Advanced Roundtable on Shareholder Disputes.

John L. Davis, B.A. (Hons.), J.D.Commercial, Gilbertson Davis LLP News, Shareholder Disputes0 Comments

On October 2, 2019 David Street will be one of four corporate lawyer facilitators at the Law Society of Ontario’s Advanced Roundtable on Shareholder Disputes. This continuing professional development program is intended to assist corporate lawyers and litigators to work together to manage and assess shareholder disputes and better resolve such disputes when they do arise.

Toronto Condo Arbitrator – Independent, Reasonable Fees and Available

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer and ArbitratorArbitration, Arbitrators, Commercial, Commercial Arbitration, Condo Litigation0 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), Q.Arb, 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. David is Member Roster Arbitrator on the Ontario Bar Association Remote Arbitration and Mediation List. 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 … Read More

Toronto Arbitrator for Shareholder Disputes, Partnership Disputes and Property Disputes

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, 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. He accepts appointment as arbitrator in shareholder disputes, partnership disputes and joint venture disputes. 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 is on the Member Arbitrator on the Ontario Bar Association Remote Arbitration and Mediation Member Roster. David has lived and practiced business  litigation and arbitration in Ontario, England, Bermuda and Dubai, … 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