The neighbour principle derived from Donoghue v. Stevenson that underlies the Anns/Cooper test continues to animate all of tort law. The pendulum continues to swing regarding who we can properly call our “neighbours” for legal purposes. While limiting who qualifies as our neighbours is necessary to prevent indeterminate liability, a balance must be struck to ensure just and fair outcomes. Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v. J.J., in a strong 7-2 decision, represents the Court attempting to strike such a balance. In Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v. J.J. a 15-year-old Plaintiff, J., suffered a catastrophic brain injury as a result of being the passenger in a car accident that occurred after his 16-year-old friend, C., stole a car from Rankin’s Garage & Sales (paras 1-5). Justice Karakatsanis, writing for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada, held that there was no duty of care owed in this case by a business that stores vehicles to someone who is injured following the theft of … Read More
Mattresses and Slogans and Interlocutory Injunctions, Oh My! (Sleep Country Canada Inc. v. Sears Canada Inc.)
In Sleep Country Canada Inc. v. Sears Canada Inc., Sleep Country Canada Inc. (“Sleep Country”) was granted an interlocutory injunction against Sears Canada Inc. (“Sears”) to prevent Sears from using their slogan “THERE IS NO REASON TO BUY A MATTRESS ANYWHERE ELSE” while the trade-mark infringement litigation (in which Sleep Country claims Sears’ slogan infringes on Sleep Country’s trade-marked slogan of, “WHY BUY A MATTRESS ANYWHERE ELSE”) is ongoing. The three-part test set out in RJR-MacDonald v. Canada (Attorney General) was ultimately satisfied. The heart of the case was not on whether this was a serious issue or on the balance of convenience, but rather, on whether irreparable harm was established. The Court found in favour of Sleep Country’s arguments that confusion, depreciation of goodwill, and loss of distinctiveness would result, as well as, a loss of sales in the minimum 18-24-month period between the time of this hearing and the determination of the … Read More
Grounds for Judicial Intervention on International Arbitral Awards – Key Takeaways
In Consolidated Contractors Group S.A.L. (Offshore) v. Ambatovy Minerals S.A., a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, a USD$258 million project for the construction of a slurry pipeline from a nickel mine in the mountains of Madagascar to the coast lead to arbitration between the appellant (the contractor) and the respondent (tendered the project). After mutually agreeing to by-pass the adjudication stage of their three-stage dispute resolution process and go straight to a Tribunal, the appellant was only awarded $7M of its $91M claim and the respondent was awarded nearly $25M on its counterclaim. These awards were challenged on appeal as being made without jurisdiction, in breach of procedural fairness, and violating public policy. However, the appeal was dismissed. Judicial intervention in international arbitral awards under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law (the “Model Law”) – though given the force of law by the International Commercial Arbitration Act … Read More
McDonald’s Not Served Valid Revocation of Waiver – Commercial Leasing in the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal for Ontario in North Elgin Centre Inc. v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited, 2018 ONCA 71 allowed an appeal by McDonald’s from a decision on applications by both parties to determine whether the subject lease came to an end on a described date because McDonald’s had not complied with the renewal provision in the lease. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the decision of the application judge, that despite that the parties were in negotiations, and that the respondent had waived its right to insist on strict compliance with the terms of the renewal provision (to refer the determination of the renewal rental rate to arbitration), that the respondent had effectively revoked its waiver and reverted to its strict legal rights, namely to terminate the lease in the absence of the referral of the dispute on renewal rental rate to arbitration within the permitted time. On the … Read More
Greater Harmonization of International Commercial Arbitration Laws
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 78 States of a total of 109 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 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 of the commercial arbitration process, from the arbitration agreement itself, to the recognition and … Read More
Andrew Ottaway appears on CTV Your Morning to discuss Online Defamation
Andrew Ottaway was asked to comment on current issues in online defamation for CTV’s “Your Morning”. See the video here.
Is a Burrito a Wrap? Ontario Court Decides Injunction Involving Exclusivity Clause in Commercial Lease
In 2432714 Ontario Inc. v. Heffner Development Group Limited, 2018 ONSC 1034, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was recently asked to decide the age old question of whether a burrito was a wrap in the context of an exclusivity clause in a commercial lease agreement. In this case, the tenant operated a Pita Pit franchise in a 13 unit plaza owned by the landlord. The tenant had negotiated an exclusivity clause in the lease agreement that gave it the exclusive right to sell “pitas and wraps” in the plaza. When the tenant discovered that a Mexican fast food chain, Holy Guacamole, was renovating one of the units, it brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the landlord from leasing a unit in the plaza to Holy Guacamole. The tenant argued that Holy Guacamole sold “wraps” because its menu of tacos, burritos and quesadillas were all prepared by wrapping up food items in a tortilla. … Read More
Court of Appeal Confirms Importance of Requisitions in Real Estate Transactions
The Court of Appeal of Ontario decision in 1418885 Ontario Ltd. v. 2193139 Ontario Limited, 2018 ONCA 54, recently overturned a summary judgment motion decision which confirmed the importance of requisition letters in real estate transactions. In this case, the parties had entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a property with a restaurant, golf course, 12 residential apartments, a two-storey home and a banquet hall. The Agreement of Purchase and Sale included the following requisition clause: 8. TITLE SEARCH: Buyer shall be allowed until 6:00 p.m. on the 30th day of May, 2016 (Requisition Date) to examine the title to the property at his own expense and until the earlier of: (i) thirty days from the later of the Requisition Date or the date on which the conditions in this Agreement are fulfilled or otherwise waived or, (ii) five days prior to completion, to satisfy himself that there are … Read More
Court of Appeal Provides Guidance on Whether Party Carrying on Business in Ontario as Basis for Jurisdiction
In Sgromo v. Scott, 2018 ONCA 5, the Court of Appeal considered the scope of one of the presumptive grounds for jurisdiction of the Ontario Court: whether a party carried on business in Ontario. The Defendants were incorporated in jurisdictions outside of Ontario. The Defendants brought motions to stay or dismiss the subject actions. On the motion, the Plaintiff alleged that because the products of some of the Defendants were advertised, marketed, and distributed by third party retailers in Ontario, the Defendants were carrying on business in Ontario, such that Ontario had presumptive jurisdiction. The motion judge rejected that argument. On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge’s reasons, stating that: as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17 (CanLII), the Courts must be cautious when considering whether an entity is carrying on business in the jurisdiction, … Read More
Ontario Court Decides on Appropriate Use of Mini-Trial in Summary Judgment Motions
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
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
Court of Appeal Confirms Strict Notice Requirements in the Termination of Commercial Leases
The Ontario Court of Appeal in Jay-Pee Drycleaners Inc. v. 2321324 Ontario Inc., 2017 ONCA 798, recently overturned a summary judgment motion decision involving the termination of a commercial lease agreement. In this case, the tenant had operated a dry cleaning business for 12 years before the lease was converted into a month-to-month tenancy. After the new landlord purchased the property and was assigned the lease, it demanded the tenant provide evidence that it had successfully completed a course related to the management of dry cleaning contaminants and waste. Even though the tenant advised that the Ministry of Environment had deemed the course to be unnecessary and the course was not available until the following year, the new landlord terminated the lease and retained a bailiff to re-enter and re-possess the premises. The tenant brought an action for damages arising from the unlawful termination of the lease. The new landlord responded with a counterclaim and brought a summary judgment motion. 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
Bhasin v. Hrynew and the Duty of Good Faith in Real Estate Agreements of Purchase and Sale
The Supreme Court of Canada in Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, recognized the duty of good faith in contract and the obligations of the parties to act honestly in the performance of their contractual obligations. The duty of good faith applies to any contract, including real estate contracts such as Buyer Representation Agreements, Listing Agreements and Agreements of Purchase and Sale. As discussed in a previous blog post, Agreements of Purchase and Sale generally include a “time is of the essence” clause which means that time limits will be strictly enforced by the courts. Problems often arise when vendors refuse to agree to seemingly minor indulgences requested by purchasers such as an extension of the closing date or an extension of the deadline to provide the deposit. Two recent decisions in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice have addressed the duty of good faith, as expressed in Bhasin v. Hrynew, in the performance of Agreements of Purchase and Sale. Unfortunately for purchasers, it appears that … Read More
Court of Appeal Majority Rejects Oppression Claim Against Condominium Corporation’s Leasing of Parking Spaces
In Cheung v. York Region Condominium, the appellant owned several units which were leased to tenants who operated a 230-seat restaurant out of those units. After complaints by other unit owners that restaurant customers were taking up most or all of the 162 shared common element parking spaces, the condominium corporation enacted a by-law to allow the corporation to lease four parking spots per unit owner “from time to time”, reducing the potential number of spaces available to restaurant guests by 80%. The applicant sought a declaration that the by-law was invalid since the leases could be perpetual and thereby essentially create exclusive use common elements, which can only be created by specific declaration, not through by-law. The applicant further argued that the by-law was oppressive and unfairly prejudicial to the applicant’s interests. The majority held that, since the by-law only approved the ability to enter into leases, which could be on whatever … Read More
Timing is Everything in Real Estate Agreements of Purchase and Sale
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Preiano v. Cirillo, 2017 ONCA 615, involved a residential real estate Agreement of Purchase and Sale which required the purchasers to deliver a deposit of $25,000 in the form of a negotiable cheque to the vendors’ brokerage within 24 hours of acceptance of the agreement. The closing date was scheduled to take place about three months later. The agreement included a “time shall be of the essence” clause. The purchasers had initially submitted a personal cheque in the amount of $25,000 with the offer but the vendors’ brokerage requested the deposit be paid in certified funds. The purchasers subsequently delivered the deposit in the form of a bank draft to the vendors’ brokerage but it was about one day late. The vendors’ brokerage did not take issue with the late delivery and provided a receipt for the deposit. Six days before the scheduled closing date, the vendors took the position that they would not be closing … Read More