Sometimes businesses and their stakeholders act wrongfully in seeking to advance their interests and / or harm competitors. There are often reports of the “dirty tricks” used by those in business to seek to destroy, defeat or diminish the effectiveness of a competitor. These are often unethical tactics, but sometimes such conduct is also wrongful and has been recognized by the common law as actionable in the courts for damages or injunctive or other urgent equitable relief, or prohibited by a statute which provides for a civil monetary remedy or grounds for an injunction. These causes of action have been recognized and provide the basis of lawsuits for harm, loss and damage, and in suitable circumstances, grounds for an immediate injunction or mandatory order prohibiting the further commission of the wrongful acts. In short, wrongful intentional acts causing harm, loss or damage to businesses or their stakeholders may give rise to a cause of action in common law business torts (the so-called … Read More
Court Stays Arbitration but Denies Costs to Successful Party for “Blameworthy Conduct”
In Gorman v Kosowan, 2016 ONSC 5085, the applicant commenced a proceeding regarding a business dispute. The applicant and individual respondent were joint owners of a transportation and warehouse business. A dispute arose between them. The respondents subsequently terminated the applicant’s employment and excluded him from the business. The applicant sought relief from the allegedly oppressive conduct under the Canada Business Corporations Act and the Ontario Business Corporations Act. The respondents brought a motion to stay the oppression application based on an arbitration clause in the parties’ Unanimous Shareholders’ Agreement (“USA”). The USA arbitration clause required arbitration for “disputes under” the USA. The Judge found that the applicant’s claims were covered by the arbitration clause and granted the respondents’ motion to stay the application. In the Judge’s subsequent costs decision, here, the Judge denied the respondents’ request for costs of the motion. While a winning party is typically entitled to its costs … Read More
Joint Venture Disputes and International Joint Venture Arbitration
Joint ventures are often established to synergize what each member of the joint venture can add to the consortium. Sometimes a joint venture is the structure chosen because those members engaged in the joint venture are located in different jurisdictions, a consideration which may be pivotal for its success. While invariably created by contractual agreement, some joint ventures have been held by the courts to be a partnership, while others have been determined to be merely contractual, without comprising a partnership. A myriad of considerations have been used by the courts in determining whether a joint venture is a partnership. Issues have also arisen concerning the management and operational structure of a joint venture and whether such structure necessarily results in the joint venture being found to comprise a partnership. Historically the distinction between partner and contractor has been important, since the law only imposed a fiduciary duty upon partners, and not … Read More
Partnership and Contractual Disputes between Professionals (Dentists, Doctors, Accountants, Lawyers, Architects, Engineers)
Partnerships Professionals often carry on their professional practice as partners in a partnership or limited liability partnership. Partnerships can be created simply by conduct and the application of the Partnership Act or by a simple or complex partnership agreement. Joint Venture Contract – Fiduciary Duties? In other cases professionals associate in practice by participation in a contractual joint venture which, depending on the agreement and the circumstances, may or may not at law also be a partnership but, in any event, may attract the duties and obligations of partners, including fiduciary duties. Sharing Space Lastly, some professionals may consider that they are only sharing space with other professional and may be very surprised to find that the arrangement gave rise at law to unexpected obligations. Duty of Honest Performance The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Bhasin v. Hrynew, though not a case about partnerships, nonetheless has a wide-ranging impact … Read More
David Alderson, Panelist on Law Society of Upper Canada Annotated Partnership Agreement 2015 CDP
David Alderson, of Gilbertson Davis LLP, will be a panelist at the Law Society of Upper Canada Continuing Professional Development program, The Annotated Partnership Agreement 2015, on September 29, 2015 (alternate date, November 20, 2015) on the panel entitled “Review of the Differences (Legal and Drafting) Between a Partnership and a Joint Venture – Understanding the Significant Consequences”. Moderator of the panel (and Chair of the program) is Alison Manzer, Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP and co-panelist is Sunita Doobay, TaxChambers LLP. David Alderson, LL.B (Osgoode), LL.M (Lond.) is a commercial litigator with Toronto insurance and commercial litigation firm Gilbertson Davis LLP. He holds a Master of Laws degree in commercial and corporate law and has been admitted to practice in England & Wales, Bermuda and New York State, as well as Ontario. David has practised local law in England, Bermuda, Dubai and Ontario, in diverse business and commercial litigation practice … Read More
Oppression Actions vs. Derivative Actions under the OBCA
The Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) provides broad remedial options for directors, officers, shareholders, and other “complainants” to correct oppressive or prejudicial actions by or against a corporation. Most commonly, these take the form of either an oppression action or a derivative action. Oppression actions are where a complainant commences an action where that individuals interests have been oppressed or unfairly prejudiced. Derivative actions, on the other hand, are where a complainant starts litigation in the name of the corporation where the corporation has been wronged and the corporation (by its board of directors) chooses not to commence litigation itself. Because derivative actions bring the corporation into litigation without its consent, and often require the corporation to pay the legal costs of that action, leave of the court is required to commence a derivative action. Tersigni v. Georgevitch OBCA actions, and in particular oppression actions, can sometimes blur the legal distinction between … Read More
Gilbertson Davis LLP News – OsgoodePD Program on Shareholder Litigation and the Closely-Held Company
David Alderson, of Gilbertson Davis LLP attended as a faculty member of the OsgoodePD professional development program on April 7, 2015 concerning Shareholder Litigation and the Closely-Held Company. He was on the panel addressing Ethical and Professional Issues in Shareholder Disputes and Litigation. Osgoode Hall Law School said of this professional development program, “This OsgoodePD program brings together some of the country’s top commercial litigators and other experts to provide insight into key aspects of litigating these cases.” Shareholders disputes are one of the most common and most complex disputes handled by commercial litigators and in-house counsel. The panel on Ethical and Professional Issues in Shareholder Disputes and Litigation included Paul N. Feldman of Feldman Lawyers, Tom Curry of Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP and David Alderson of Gilbertson Davis LLP, with Lisa C. Munro of Lerners LLP moderating. The program is being re-broadcast on May 22, 2015 as described here. David Alderson has experience in shareholder and partnership disputes, both in arbitration … Read More
Court of Appeal on Restrictive Covenant on Dissolution of Partnership
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
- Page 2 of 2
- 1
- 2