Toronto Debt Recovery Lawyers | Enforcement of Judgment Lawyers

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer and ArbitratorCivil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial Contracts, Contract Disputes, Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Finance Litigation, Fraud Recovery, Gift Law, Lenders | Borrowers, Loan and Guarantee, Promissory Note Claims0 Comments

Domestic and, US and Other Foreign Debt, Judgments and Awards We are often consulted or retained in connection with recovery of large local debt or foreign debt, including casino debt, or to seek recognition  and enforcement in Ontario, Canada, of judgments, orders, or arbitration awards obtained in Ontario, other provinces of Canada, US and other foreign jurisdictions. We are sometimes retained to work with the assistance of lawyers practicing debt recovery in other jurisdictions, including, those located offshore. Claims on Loan Guarantee We can advise and represent those claiming payment on a guarantee, and those named as guarantor of a loan. Loan or Gift? | Loan or Investment? Disputes sometimes arise when either a payment advanced or transfer is alleged to be a loan rather than a gift, or alleged to a loan rather than an investment, or vice-versa. We have relevant experience in both domestic and cross-border litigation. Injunctions and Other … Read More

Are Examinations by Video Conference the “New Normal” During COVID-19?

Nick P. Poon, B.Sc. (Hons.), B.A., J.D.Civil Litigation, Commercial, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Investment | Financial Services, Investment Fraud, Professional Liability, Securities Fraud, Securities Litigation0 Comments

On March 17, 2020, Ontario declared a State of Emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic and ushered in a new era of physical and social distancing rules.  Individuals are required to maintain a minimum distance of two metres from any other person who is not a member of the same household.  Gatherings of more than five people are banned unless they are members of a single household. Since March 17, 2020, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has suspended all regular operations, including hearings for civil matters except urgent and time-sensitive motions and applications and other limited matters such as consent motions in writing.  Most of these hearings are conducted in writing, or remotely by telephone or video conference, due to physical and social distancing rules.  In-person hearings would only be granted in very limited circumstances. Although the Court may be closed for the time being, civil litigants and their … Read More

COVID-19 / Coronavirus: Urgent Hearings in Small Claims Court

Nick P. Poon, B.Sc. (Hons.), B.A., J.D.Business Disputes, Business Interruption, Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Leasing, Condo Litigation, Construction Litigation, Contract Disputes, Contract Termination, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Creditors Rights, Debt and Enforcing Judgments, Event Cancellation, Event Termination, Fraud Recovery, Mortgage Litigation, Real Estate Litigation, Retail Litigation, Shopping Mall Lease Litigation0 Comments

Since March 16, 2020, all hearings in the Ontario Small Claims Court have been suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Although the Superior Court of Justice has had procedures in place to bring an urgent civil or commercial list hearing since March 15, 2020, the Small Claims Court was left without the ability to hear urgent motions and garnishment hearings until today. Today, the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice released the updated Notice Regarding the Suspension of Small Claims Court Operations to outline the procedure to request an urgent hearing in Small Claims Court and to provide guidance on the type of matters a judge may find to be urgent.  Urgent  hearings may include: Cases in which a judgment debtor has an outstanding warrant for arrest issued in relation to a Small Claims Court proceeding; or Time-sensitive cases that would result in immediate and serious financial hardship … Read More

Toronto Lawyers for Large Debt Collection and Enforcement of Foreign and Local Judgments and Awards

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer and ArbitratorAppeals, Casino Debt Recovery, Commercial Lending, Commercial List Matters, Creditors Rights, Cross-Border Litigation, Debt and Enforcing Judgments, Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Forum Challenges, Heavy Industries, Injunction & Specific Performance, International Litigation, International Trade Fraud, Jurisdictional Challenges, Letters of Request, Letters Rogatory, Loan and Guarantee, Mareva Injunction, Mortgage Enforcement, Norwich Order, Of Interest to US Counsel, Offshore, Promissory Note Claims, Request for International Judicial Assistance0 Comments

Domestic and, US and Other Foreign Debt, Judgments and Awards We are often consulted or retained in connection with recovery of large local debt or foreign debt, including casino debt, or to seek recognition  and enforcement in Ontario, Canada, of judgments, orders, or arbitration awards obtained in Ontario, other provinces of Canada, US and other foreign jurisdictions. We are sometimes retained to work with the assistance of lawyers practicing debt recovery in other jurisdictions, including, those located offshore. Claims on Loan Guarantee We can advise and represent those claiming payment on a guarantee, and those named as guarantor of a loan. Loan or Gift? | Loan or Investment? Disputes sometimes arise when either a payment advanced or transfer is alleged to be a loan rather than a gift, or alleged to a loan rather than an investment, or vice-versa. We have relevant experience in both domestic and cross-border litigation. Injunctions and Other … Read More

COVID-19 / Coronavirus: Urgent Hearings for Enforcement Matters

Nick P. Poon, B.Sc. (Hons.), B.A., J.D.Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Creditors Rights, Debt and Enforcing Judgments, Fraud Recovery0 Comments

Further to my blog posts in respect to scheduling urgent hearings in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for commercial lease matters and real estate closings, an urgent hearing was recently granted in an enforcement matter involving a contempt hearing against a judgment debtor. In Morris v. Onca, 2020 ONSC 1805, the judgment creditor had obtained default judgment in November 2019 for repayment of funds obtained by fraud.  The judgment creditor took steps to enforce the default judgment, including conducting examinations in aid of execution, but the process was frustrated by the judgment debtor’s refusal to answer relevant questions and his failure to comply with court orders to produce documents.  The judgment debtor did not dispute the adjudged amount was owed to the judgment creditor but provided numerous excuses for his failure to pay the default judgment and to produce documents in accordance with court orders. The judgment creditor had previously … Read More

When Shareholders Need an Auditor or Inspector

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer and ArbitratorBusiness Dispute Arbitrator, Business Disputes, Commercial, Commercial List Matters, Commercial Litigation, Corporate Litigation, Directors' and Officers' Liability, Financial Services | Investment, Fraud Recovery, Injunction & Specific Performance, Mareva Injunction, Norwich Order, Oppression Remedies, Preservation Orders0 Comments

I address here in a general way the procedures available for a shareholder or group of shareholders seeking the assistance of the court to have an auditor or inspector appointed. Financial Statements  – None or Inaccurate  Shareholders in closely-held Ontario corporations sometimes have concerns about the accuracy of the financial statements when the company does not have an auditor. Oppressive or Unfairly Prejudicial Conduct In other cases, a shareholder in an Ontario corporation may consider that the corporation has been carried on, or the powers of the directors are, or have been, exercised, in a manner that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to, or that unfairly disregards, the interests of the shareholder. Corporation and Fraud One or more shareholders may have concerns that the corporation’s business is, or has been, carried on with the intent to defraud,  that the corporation was formed or dissolved for a fraudulent or unlawful purpose, … Read More

Hurdles To Recognition and Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments

Sabrina Saltmarsh, B.A. (Hons), J.D.Commercial, Cross-Border Litigation, Debt and Enforcing Judgments, Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Interjurisdictional Disputes, International Litigation, International Sale of Goods, International Sale of Goods Arbitrator, International Trade Fraud, International Traders, Jurisdictional Challenges, Letters Rogatory, Of Interest to US Counsel, Offshore, Request for International Judicial Assistance0 Comments

In the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision of H.M.B. Holdings Limited v. Antigua and Barbuda, 2020 ONCA 12, the Court of Appeal rendered a split (2-1) decision regarding the recognition of a foreign judgment which muddies the waters on the analysis to be applied to s.3(b) of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. R.5 (REJA) Original Judgment: In this case H.M.B. Holdings Limited (HMB) was successful in obtaining judgment on February 26, 2014, against Antigua and Barbuda from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the JCPC), which is the highest court of appeal for certain British territories and Commonwealth countries including Antigua and Barbuda. The case related to damages sought by HMB due to the expropriation of resort lands by the Antiguan government. The case has garnered some media attention because of the manner in which the lands were expropriated. HMB then brought a common law … Read More

Liability of Directors and Officers | Oppression Remedy | Shareholders Claims

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer and ArbitratorBusiness Disputes, Business Fraud, Business Litigation, Business Torts | Economic Torts, Closely-Held Business Disputes, Commercial, Commercial Litigation, Directors' and Officers' Liability, Embezzlement, Family Business Disputes, Mareva Injunction, Norwich Order, Oppression Remedies, Partnerships and Shareholder Disputes, Shareholder Disputes, Start-Up Disputes0 Comments

The lawyers in our Business Dispute Practice Group have acted in Ontario and other jurisdictions for small, mid-sized and large corporations (incorporated in Ontario and in Canada), shareholders, directors, officers, and executives in corporate disputes and shareholder disputes. We have acted for clients in both oppression remedy action and derivative actions. Oppression Remedy The oppression remedy is a mechanism in the Ontario Business Corporations Act and the Canada Business Corporations Act to protect the interests of shareholders and stakeholders in a corporation against wrongful conduct.  Whether the Ontario or Canada Act will apply depends on the jurisdiction in which the corporation was incorporated. The oppression remedy can be used to protect the interests of shareholders, directors, officers or creditors against the acts of other shareholders, the board of directors or other affiliates of the corporation. The oppression remedy can be used to protect the interests of shareholders, directors, officers or creditors against the … Read More

Limitation Period Considerations in Derivative Proceedings

Sabrina Saltmarsh, B.A. (Hons), J.D.Business Fraud, Business Law, Business Litigation, Closely-Held Business Disputes, Corporate Disputes, Corporate Litigation, Directors' and Officers' Liability, Family Business Disputes, Oppression Remedies0 Comments

Under modern business corporation legislation, a claim for wrongdoing against a corporation can only be brought by the corporation itself, or by way of a derivative action for which leave from the court is required. In Ontario, there is a standard two-year limitation period that applies to the commencement of most lawsuits, including derivative claims on behalf of a corporation. When wrongs done to a corporation are alleged to have been done by a director or directors who exercise control and decision-making on behalf of the corporation, it is unlikely that those same directors will agree to commence a claim on behalf of the corporation for those wrongs. It is then up to other interested stakeholders, such as shareholders, to seek leave to commence a derivative claim on behalf of the corporation for the wrongs done to the corporation. Until the release of a 2015 Supreme Court of Canada ruling … Read More

Nick Poon Comments on Real Estate Wire Fraud for Yahoo!

Nick P. Poon, B.Sc. (Hons.), B.A., J.D.Broker and Agent Claims, Civil Litigation, Cyber Fraud, Fraud, Fraud Recovery, Fraudulent Schemes, Gilbertson Davis LLP News, Injunction & Specific Performance, Real Estate | Developers, Real Estate Agent and Broker, Real Estate Litigation0 Comments

Nick Poon was recently asked to comment on real estate wire fraud for Yahoo News Canada. Read the Yahoo News Canada article here: ‘The prospects of recovering the money are near zero’: The scam homebuyers need to be aware of. If you have a fraud claim or a real estate dispute, please contact us for an initial consultation.

Protecting Your Internet Domain Name

Sabrina Saltmarsh, B.A. (Hons), J.D.Business Fraud, Business Litigation, Business Torts | Economic Torts, Copyright Infringement, Cyber Fraud, Cyber Risks, Domain Name Disputes, eCommerce | Online Retail, Identity Fraud, Injunction & Specific Performance, Intellectual Property, Internet | Technology, Internet Fraud, Passing Off, Specific Performance, Start-Up Disputes, Technology and Internet, Trademark Infringement, Website Copying0 Comments

In the age of the internet and e-commerce, the domain name of a business holds tremendous value and is often an integral part of the identity of a business. Since a website can only have one domain name on the internet, there is no shortage of disputes which arise over ownership rights of domain names, particularly those closely affiliated with a registered or unregistered trademark. What is Cyber-Squatting? Cyber-Squatting occurs when someone has registered a domain name in which they have no legitimate business interest, and can sometimes involve setting up a fake website for a business. The reason could be that the registrant will then seek to sell the domain name to the legitimate owner of the business or trademark, or their competitor for a profit. Alternatively, it may be to syphon away business leads online to competitors for a fee, or for advertising revenues. Typo-Squatting is similar to … Read More

Gilbertson Davis LLP Successfully Defends Against Appeal of Decision Enforcing Liquidated Damages in Settlement Contract

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.Appeals, Appellate Advocacy, Business Litigation, Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Contract Disputes, Fraud, Fraudulent Schemes, Gilbertson Davis LLP News, Investment Fraud, Summary Judgment0 Comments

In Haas v. Viscardi, 2019 ONCA 133, Andrew Ottaway of Gilbertson Davis LLP assisted the plaintiff in securing his settlement agreement with a defendant (in an earlier investment fraud litigation) with a liquidated damages clause.  Specifically, the defendant was required to pay $60,000 if he failed to make prompt payments under the subject settlement agreement. The defendant, after defaulting, refused to honour the liquidated damages clause.  However, on the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the motion judge upheld the liquidated damages clause and granted judgment.  Our blog post on the motion decision can be found here. On appeal, in Haas v. Viscardi, 2019 ONCA 133, the Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s argument that the liquidated damages clause was an unenforceable penalty clause, and upheld the motion judge’s decision granting summary judgment.  The Court of Appeal also enforced the provision in the settlement agreement requiring that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s … Read More

Summary Judgment Motion Publication: Sentinels of the Hryniak Culture Shift: Four Years On

John L. Davis, B.A. (Hons.), J.D.Appeals, Appellate Advocacy, Civil Liability, Commercial Litigation, Fraud Recovery, Gilbertson Davis LLP News, Summary Judgment0 Comments

David Alderson, Senior Counsel-Commercial Litigation at Gilbertson Davis LLP, is the author of the chapter entitled Sentinels of the Hryniak Culture Shift: Four Years On, included in the Annual Review of Civil Litigation 2018 , (Ed. by the Honourable Justice Todd L. Archibald, published by Thomson Reuters Canada Limited) a copy of which can be accessed here, and which contains the following in the Overview: “Mr. Alderson has done a masterful job in reviewing the post-Hryniak judgment landscape. He canvasses whether or not our courts have embraced the advocated Hryniak culture shift in civil litigation through the simplification of pre-trial procedures and the principle of proportionality. Before embarking upon a summary judgment motion, all counsel should carefully read Mr. Alderson’s paper because it provides superb guidance concerning the prospects of success not only before the motions judge but on appellate review. Mr. Alderson’s paper is a comprehensive tour de force for all advocates.” –  The Hon. Justice Todd Archibald, Ontario Superior Court of … Read More

The Supreme Court of Canada On Defence Against the Tort of Conversion (Teva Canada Ltd. v. TD Canada Trust)

Janice Perri, B.A. (Summa Cum Laude)Appeals, Appellate Advocacy, Business Law, Business Litigation, Business Torts | Economic Torts, Civil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation, Employee Fraud, Finance Litigation, Financial Services | Investment, Fraud, Fraud Recovery, Fraudulent Schemes, Investment | Financial Services0 Comments

In Teva Canada Ltd. v. TD Canada Trust, Teva Canada Ltd. (“Teva”), a pharmaceutical company, “was the victim of a fraudulent cheque scheme implemented by one of its employees”, (para 1). Teva claimed the collecting banks were liable for the tort of conversion. Teva Canada Ltd. v. TD Canada Trust provides insight into the Bills of Exchange Act‘s (“BEA”) section 20(5) defence to the tort of conversion, by clarifying the approach used to determining whether a payee is “fictitious or non-existing”. In the event that a payee is deemed fictitious or non-existing within the meaning of section 20(5) of the BEA, the bill may be treated as payable to the bearer, and thus can be negotiated by simple “delivery” to the bank meaning endorsement is not required, and the defence will succeed (para 5). Justice Abella, writing for the majority, outlined the two-step framework a bank must satisfy to demonstrate that a payee is fictitious or … Read More

Gilbertson Davis LLP Enforces Liquidated Damages Clause in Settlement Agreement by Summary Judgment

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.Business Litigation, Business Torts | Economic Torts, Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Contract Disputes, Fraud, Fraud Recovery, Fraudulent Schemes, Shareholder Disputes, Summary Judgment0 Comments

In Haas v. Viscardi, 2018 ONSC 2883 (CanLII) the plaintiff settled a claim of $200,000 based on fraudulent misrepresentation with three defendants. The settlement agreement provided for various payments by the defendants on specified dates.  The settlement agreement required Viscardi to make payments of $30,000 in three installments. If Viscardi failed to make the payments on the dates provided, the settlement agreement provided that Viscardi would consent to judgment for $60,000 (the “Consent Judgment Clause”). Viscardi made one payment of $10,000, but failed to make the remaining two payments, in breach of the settlement agreement.  He then refused to consent to judgment. The plaintiff commenced a claim to enforce the settlement agreement, and brought a motion for summary judgment. The motion judge rejected Viscardi’s argument that the Consent Judgment Clause was an unenforceable penalty clause.  The judge considered the test for whether a liquidated damages clause is an unenforceable penalty: … Read More

Insurance Coverage For Cyber Crime: The Brick v. Chubb

Gilbertson Davis LLPCyber Fraud, Cyber Risks, Cyber Security, Fraud, Fraud Recovery, Insurance, Internet Fraud, Summary Judgment0 Comments

In the recent case of The Brick v. Chubb Insurance, the Alberta Court of Queens Bench held that the plaintiff’s commercial crime policy did not cover the money lost by the plaintiff as a result of a social engineering fraud. The plaintiff had been contacted by unknown persons pretending to be one of the plaintiff’s service providers, and requested banking information from their accounts payable department, which ultimately led to the plaintiff changing their internal records and sending of payments to the fraudsters’ own account instead of their service provider. The plaintiff sought coverage for the losses, and the insurer denied coverage. The court noted that the policy only applied to fund transfers made “without the insured’s knowledge or consent”. The plaintiff argued that they did not consent, since their actions were induced by the fraudulent correspondence. The insurer argued that the policy did not require consent to be “informed” or otherwise … Read More

Court of Appeal Reiterates Importance of Pleading Particulars of Fraud

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.Appeals, Appellate Advocacy, Civil Litigation, Contract Disputes, Fraud, Partnerships and Shareholder Disputes0 Comments

In Midland Resources Holding Limited v. Shtaif, 2017 ONCA 320, the trial judge found the appellants liable to a company’s shareholders for fraudulent misrepresentations before and after an initial public offering (IPO).  On appeal, the appellants argued that the trial judge erred in finding liability based on the IPO-related statements because the respondents did not plead or argue at trial that such statements amounted to fraudulent misrepresentations. The Court of Appeal stated that a pleading of fraud or misrepresentation must set out with careful particularity the elements of the misrepresentation relied upon, including: the alleged misrepresentation itself; when, where, how, by whom and to whom it was made; its falsity; the inducement; the intention that the plaintiff should rely upon it; the alteration by the plaintiff of his or her position relying on the misrepresentation; the resulting loss or damage to the plaintiff; and if deceit is alleged, an allegation … Read More