In the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“ONSC”), Acteon v. Verona Medical Group, 2023 ONSC 5140, the plaintiff was successful in obtaining the recognition of a judgment issued by a court in France, the Commercial Court of Bordeaux (the “Summary Proceeding Judgment”), albeit the ONSC stayed the plaintiff’s ability to enforce the Summary Proceeding Judgment in Ontario pending the defendants’ appeal of a related judgment (the “Merits Proceeding Judgment”) in France. The main contentious issue in this recognition proceeding was the defendants’ position that the plaintiff’s Summary Proceeding Judgment was not “final” because of the defendants’ appeal of the Merits Proceeding Judgment in France. The plaintiff’s legal expert advised the ONSC that though the Summary Proceeding Judgment was a “provisional award”, it was still “final, valid, binding and fully enforceable”. The defendants’ legal expert disagreed, positing that the Summary Proceeding Judgment was only an interim decision … Read More
Directors Can Be Liable To Corporations Creditors For Stripping Assets
In the recent Court of Appeal decision of FNF Enterprises Inc. v. Wag and Train Inc., 2023 ONCA 92 the Court of Appeal considered whether a landlord in a commercial lease arrangement could pursue a claim against the sole director and officer of the tenant corporation, for stripping the assets of the corporation to evade their debt obligations under the lease. The Facts The Appellants, FNF Enterprises Inc., and 2378007 Ontario Inc. (the “Landlord”) owned a commercial premises in Kitchener, Ontario which they leased to one of the Respondents on the appeal, a corporate entity named Wag and Tag Inc., (the “Tenant”). Wag and Tag Inc. was in the business of providing dog grooming, training and daycare services. The lease ran from 2015 to March 31, 2021. The premises was abandoned by the Tenant prior to the end of the lease term. The Claim In September 2020, the Landlord commenced … Read More
Are my Trademark Rights being Breached? Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Lawyers
In Subway IP LLC v. Budway, Cannabis & Wellness Store, 2021 FC 583, the Federal Court of Canada (“FC”) found that the respondents infringed on the applicant’s registered trademark contrary to section 20 of the Trademarks Act. The FC found that the use of the “BUDWAY” trademark amounted to the tort of passing off and depreciation of goodwill in the appellant’s trademark. As a result, the court granted the applicant, Subway, damages in the amount of $15,000 and an injunction against the respondents prohibiting them, among other things, from dealing in goods or services in association with the trademark or trade name “BUDWAY”. What is Considered a Breach of Trademark Rights? In the FC’s reasons for its decision, it advised generally that: A trademark registration grants the owner the exclusive right to use the mark throughout Canada in respect of the goods and services in the registration; The right to … Read More
Ontario Court Affirms “Generous and Liberal Approach” to the Recognition/Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
In the recent decision, M1 Florida Developments Inc. v. Ameristar Development Corporation, 2021 ONSC 6883 (CanLII), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“OSCJ”) granted the plaintiffs default judgment in Ontario for the registration and enforcement of a judgment that the plaintiffs obtained in the United States of America (the “Foreign Judgment”). The OSCJ advised that Canadian courts “have adopted a generous and liberal approach to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments”. Further, the OSCJ opined that the purpose of an action for the recognition of a foreign judgment “is to assist in enforcing an already-adjudicated dispute” and is not “to evaluate or re-litigate the underlying claim”. The OSCJ was satisfied that the foreign court “properly assumed jurisdiction over the dispute” and noted that a Canadian court “will generally recognize and enforce a foreign judgment where the foreign court assumed jurisdiction on the same basis as the domestic court would”. … Read More
Recognition of Foreign Judgments – Supreme Court Leaves Determination of Enforceability of “Ricochet Judgments” for another day – Update on Previous Blog
This is an update on our blog, Recognition of Foreign Judgments – The Ontario Courts will not Recognize Enforcement Orders (a.k.a. “Ricochet Judgments”), regarding the Superior Court decision in H.M.B. Holdings Ltd. v. Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda, 2021 ONSC 2307 (CanLII). That decision has been appealed up to the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”), which has now also rendered its decision. In dismissing the appeal, the SCC agreed with the application judge, and with the Court of Appeal, that Ontario’s Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act (the “Act”) bars the plaintiff (appellant) from registering a default judgment that it obtained in British Columbia to enforce a judgment granted by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The SCC advised that the Act only applies to (1) reciprocating jurisdictions, such as British Columbia, and (2) judgments or orders of a court in a civil proceeding where a sum of money … Read More
Breach of Contract Lawyers – Can Contracts that do not Specify Duration or that Lack a Termination Clause be Terminated Unilaterally?
Ontario’s Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) in Conseil Scolaire Catholique Franco-Nord v. Nipissing, 2021 ONCA 544 opined on how contracts that do not specify a termination date or a procedure for termination ought to be interpreted. The ONCA grappled with the question of whether to treat a contract that was silent on the issue of termination as either (1) a perpetual contract, that does not end, or (2) a contract of indefinite duration, into which the court can imply a provision allowing for unliteral termination upon reasonable notice. Historical Approach The ONCA advised that courts used to presume that contracts which were indefinite in time were perpetual in nature. However, this approach was subsequently disregarded, and courts began to presume a right to terminate an indefinite contract by the provision of reasonable notice. New Approach The ONCA advised that even more recently, however, a contextual, fact-specific, approach has been favoured by … Read More
China International Arbitration Award Enforced by Ontario Court
Tianjin v. Xu, 2019 ONSC 628 (CanLII) involved an application under the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 2, Sch 5 (the “Act”) for an order recognizing and making enforceable in Ontario an arbitral award of the Chinese International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”). Respondent’s Defences The respondent argued that the arbitration award should not be enforced in Ontario because: Service: The respondent did not receive notice of the arbitral proceeding or the appointment of arbitrators; and Jurisdiction: The Ontario Superior Court of Justice did not have jurisdiction to enforce the arbitral award because the arbitration was not an “international commercial arbitration”. Service The court found that there is no requirement that service of notice of the arbitral proceedings or of appointment of arbitrators be effected in accordance with the CIETAC Rules. Rather, the court opined that the respondent was given “proper notice” of the proceedings and … Read More
It’s not all about Intent! – Court of Appeal Confirms Test for Civil Conspiracy
In the recent decision Mughal v. Bama Inc., 2020 ONCA 704 (CanLII), the Court of Appeal upheld a lower court decision in an action alleging civil conspiracy, among other things. The underlying action involved a plaintiff seeking the return of his investment in a corporation. On appeal, it was alleged that the trial judge applied the wrong legal test for and misapprehended the evidence to find commission of the tort of conspiracy to injure. The appellate court concluded that the trial judge applied the correct test for establishing civil conspiracy to injure as follows: Whether the means used by the defendants are lawful or unlawful, the predominant purpose of the defendants’ conduct is to cause injury to the plaintiff; or, Where the conduct of the defendants is unlawful, the conduct is directed towards the plaintiff (alone or together with others), and the defendants should know in the circumstances that injury … Read More
Do it, Don’t Just Say it! Court of Appeal refuses to Rule on Arbitration Clause
On a recent motion before the Court of Appeal in Paulpillai Estate v. Yusuf, 2020 ONCA 655 (CanLII), Jamal J.A. clarifies that a party needs to bring a motion if it wants the proceeding to be referred to arbitration. In the underlying decision, Paulpillai v. Yusuf, 2020 ONSC 851 (CanLII), the motion judge noted that the responding parties “have maintained in their affidavit evidence that the matter should have proceeded by way of arbitration, but at no time did they bring a motion seeking to stay these proceedings or to compel the Applicants to proceed by way of arbitration”. Accordingly, the motion judge found that the responding parties have waived their right to seek to have the issues in the action determined by way of arbitration. In agreement with the motion judge, Jamal J.A., writing for the Court of Appeal, clarifies that, even though (a) there was an arbitration clause … Read More
Toronto Defamation Lawyers – Libel and Slander Law in Ontario
Defamation is the tort of false publication (whether written or oral). Typically, a publication which tends to lower a person’s reputation in the opinion of reasonable members of society, or to expose a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, is defamatory and will attract liability. The major piece of legislation governing the law of defamation in Ontario is the Libel and Slander Act. According to the Act, you can be defamed in two ways: via either (1) Libel and/or (2) Slander. What is Libel? Defamatory communications may be by words, pictures, sounds, or other forms of communication. They may be published on the internet, in social media postings, on websites, online reviews, chat rooms, or in other forms of broadcast. The dissemination of such defamatory comments or communications to the public is libelous. What is Slander? Slander is the public utterance of words that are meant to disparage a person … Read More
Construction Law Lawyers – An Overview of Construction Law
Construction law and practice, largely governed by the Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30 (the “Act”), is a specialized field of law which has unique attributes, processes and deadlines. One cannot contract out of the application of the Act and must abide by its provisions. Without going into the various intricacies, the following is a brief primer on some (not all) key parts of the Act for those that may need legal assistance with a construction related dispute. The Initial Contract A construction project will typically start with a contract between a property owner and a general contractor. For a fee, the contractor takes on the responsibility of overseeing the project and supplying services and/or materials to the construction project. The Subcontracts The contractor often needs help from tradespeople (“subcontractors” or “subtrades”) with various aspects of the project like plumbing, painting, etc. For such assistance, the contractor tends to enlist … Read More