In Arend v Boehm, 2017 ONSC 3424, the three Applicants in a corporate dispute applied for orders pursuant to the oppression remedy (section 248) of the Ontario Business Corporations Act in respect of BitRush, an Ontario company. The Judge noted that BitRush’s business was “reflective of the worldwide impact of business connected with the internet.” The international character of BitRush’s business was reflected in the identity of the Respondents, who were: 1) BitRush’s CEO, an Austrian resident; 2) a former BitRush board member, also an Austrian resident; 3) BitRush’s majority shareholder, a UK company; and 4) another Austrian resident. The Applicants sought: 1) a declaration that the Respondent CEO has acted oppressively, in breach of his fiduciary duty to BitRush; 2) an order transferring shares of BitRush from the Respondent UK company to certain other stakeholders; and 3) an order that the Respondent UK company’s remaining shares in BitRush be … Read More
Court of Appeal Considers Law Applicable to Bifurcation of Disputes between Court and Arbitration
In Wellman v. TELUS Communications Company, 2017 ONCA 433, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently considered the law applicable to determining whether to bifurcate a dispute between court proceedings and arbitration. In Wellman v. TELUS, the plaintiffs consisted of consumers and businesses. The plaintiffs commenced a class action against the defendant, Telus, regarding alleged overbilling. The Telus contact contained an arbitration clause. Telus acknowledged that the arbitration clause was not binding on the consumer plaintiffs (due to the Consumer Protection Act, 2002). But Telus’s position was the the business plaintiffs were bound by the arbitration clause. Telus brought a motion to stay the business plaintiffs’ class action in favour of arbitration. Telus relied upon, among other things, section 7(5) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, which provides for a partial stay of court proceedings to be granted where an arbitration agreement deals with only some of the matters in respect … Read More
Possible Changes to Choice of Court Agreements and Recognition of Foreign Judgments
Ontario recently enacted the International Choice of Court Agreements Convention Act, 2017, which will give effect to the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (the “Hague Convention”) in Ontario once Canada ratifies the Hague Convention. (Canada has not yet signed or ratified the Hague Convention. It is not yet known when Canada will ratify the Hague Convention. The Uniform Law Conference of Canada adopted a model implementation statute in 2010, suggesting that Canada may sign and ratify the Hague Convention.) In preparation for ratification, Ontario businesses should be aware of the Hague Convention’s key features, including: • where parties of member States have expressly agreed to a court in their contract, the court selected by parties must act in every case as long as the choice of court agreement is valid. The agreed Court does not have discretion (on forum non conveniens or other grounds) to decline jurisdiction in favour of courts of another State. • any court … Read More
International Sale of Goods – the Law Applicable in Ontario
Many Ontario businesses buy and sell goods from foreign companies. However, few Ontario businesses are aware that different laws apply to international purchases and sales of goods. For purchases and sales of goods between Ontario companies, the Ontario Sale of Goods Act will typically apply. However, for purchases and sales of goods between Ontario and foreign companies, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (the “CISG”) will typically apply. The CISG is “Ontario law”. It is enacted in Ontario by the International Sales Conventions Act. There are a number of key differences between the Ontario Sale of Goods Act and the CISG. One of the most notable is the obligation on the buyer to inspect goods (article 38) and give notice of any non-conformity (article 39). The inspection obligation imposed by article 38 can have significant consequences: if the buyer fails to detect a lack of conformity … Read More
Andrew Ottaway comments on International Commercial Arbitration for the Law Times
Andrew Ottaway was asked to comment on international commercial arbitration in Ontario, including the new International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017. Read the Law Times article here: “New laws may spur more arbitration in Ontario“. The lawyers at Gilbertson Davis have experience with domestic and international commercial arbitration. Please contact us to arrange an initial consultation.
Court of Appeal Reiterates Importance of Pleading Particulars of Fraud
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
Court Considers When Jurisdiction May be Found Against Sole Officer And Director of Foreign Corporation
In Olympique CMCT Inc. v Les Industries Pancor Limitée, 2017 ONSC 1929, the Plaintiff, Olympique, was a Quebec company. Olympique obtained default judgment in a Quebec action against the Defendants Pancor, an insolvent Ontario company, and Panarese, Pancor’s sole officer and director. Olympique brought an action in Ontario seeking recognition and enforcement of the Quebec judgment against Panarese in Ontario. Panarese argued that Ontario should not enforce the Quebec judgment because, among other reasons, the Quebec Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the Quebec judgment against him. Panarese lived in Ontario. Pancor was primarily located in Ontario. However, the Court stated that it was sufficient that Quebec had a real and substantial connection with the subject matter of the action, even if it had no connection with Panarese. The Court found that Panarese signed purchase orders which were transmitted to Olympique in Quebec, meaning that the contracts between Pancor and … Read More
Ontario’s New International Commercial Arbitration Act Now In Force
Ontario’s new International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017 (the “ICAA”) came into force on March 22, 2017. The new ICAA contains a number of changes from its predecessor, including: Adoption of the the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (also known as the “New York Arbitration Convention”). Essentially, Ontario has confirmed that it will recognize and enforce an arbitral award made in a state which is party to the Convention. Changes to the limitation period in which a proceeding must be commenced to enforce an arbitral award. Both the ICAA and the Ontario domestic Arbitration Act, 1991 now provide for a 10 year limitation period to commence a proceeding to enforce an arbitration award. (The ICAA previously provided for a two year limitation period.) Adoption of the 2006 amendments to the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law … Read More
Supreme Court Considers Oppression Remedy
In Mennillo v. Intramodal inc., 2016 SCC 51, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the application of the oppression remedy under the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”), which applies to federally incorporated companies. (The Ontario Business Corporations Act, which applies to Ontario incorporated companies, also contains an oppression remedy). The case involved a private corporation with originally two shareholders. There was no shareholders’ agreement. The Court described the parties’ dealings as being “marked by extreme informality”. One of the two shareholders, Mennillo, eventually resigned as officer and director of the company by providing a notice of resignation. The notice did not address his status as a shareholder. There was conflicting evidence from the parties about whether Mennillo intended to cease being a shareholder. Ultimately, the trial judge accepted that Mennillo’s withdrawal from the company included his intention to no longer guarantee the company’s debts. The trial judge found that Mennillo agreed … Read More
Court of Appeal Provides Guidance On Pleading Defamation
In The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. v. Veritas Investment Research Corporation, the parties were involved in the venture capital industry. The plaintiff company alleged that the defendants had attempted to damage the plaintiff with a “short selling” strategy. The plaintiff claimed damages for conspiracy to injure, intentional interference with economic relations, and defamation. As part of the defamation claim, the plaintiff alleged that defamatory material was published by one of the defendants to known individuals on known dates as well as to to unknown people on unknown dates. The defendants brought a motion to strike the allegations of unknown publication, arguing that it was impermissible in a defamation claim to plead publication to unknown people on unknown dates. The motion judge agreed, and ordered that specific allegation be struck out. On appeal, the Court of Appeal disagreed. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that defamation claims are typically held to … Read More
Court of Appeal Holds that Two Year Limitation Period Applies To Foreign Judgments
There was conflicting case law in Ontario regarding whether a two-year limitation period applied to an action to enforce a foreign judgment in Ontario (from a jurisdiction to without a reciprocal enforcement agreement). The Court of Appeal addressed that conflicting case law in Independence Plaza 1 Associates, L.L.C. v. Figliolini, 2017 ONCA 44. The debate turned on whether an action to enforce a foreign judgment was a claim within section 16(1) of the Limitations Act, 2002, which creates a class of claims to which no limitation period applies. Specifically, the question was whether a claim to enforce a foreign judgment is a claim to “enforce an order of a court or any other order that may be enforced in the same way as an order of a court” (under section 16(1)(b)). The Court stated that a foreign judgment cannot be directly enforced in Ontario in the absence of reciprocal enforcement legislation. A … Read More
Court of Appeal Upholds Finding Of Jurisdiction Based on Business Activities in Ontario
In Stuart Budd & Sons Limited v. IFS Vehicle Distributors ULC, 2016 ONCA 977, the plaintiff/respondents were eight car dealerships. Four of the eight were located outside of Ontario. The defendant/appellants were: IFS Vehicle Distributors ULC (“IFS”), a British Columbia corporation; International Fleet Sales Inc. (“International”), a California corporation, an affiliate of IFS which supplied parts and accessories to IFS; and two individuals who were officers of both IFS and International, and who resided outside of Ontario. The defendants brought a motion to stay the action, arguing that the out-of-province plaintiffs could not be part of the action, and could not sue the defendants in Ontario. However, the motion judge found that the claim was presumptively connected to Ontario based on one of the factors set out by the Supreme Court in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda: that the defendant carried on business within the jurisdiction. The motion judge found that … Read More
Court Refuses to Enforce Forum Selection Clause
In McMillan McGee Corp. v Northrop Grumman Canada, 2016 ONSC 6334, the Plaintiff sued the Defendants (“Northrop”) for damages arising from work done by the Plaintiff for the Northrop in Ontario. Northrop’s Request for Proposals included “Purchase Order Terms and Conditions” (the “RFP Terms and Conditions”). The RFP Terms and Conditions contained: a forum selection clause, stating that “either Party may only bring suit in federal or state court in the state from which this Order is issued”; and a choice of law clause, stating that “his Order will be construed and interpreted according to the law of the state from which this Order is issued, as identified in the Order”. “Order” was defined as “The instrument of contracting including this Purchase Order and all referenced documents”. The parties’ relationship involved three Purchase Orders, and many change orders. The lawsuit involved invoices delivered after the Second Purchase Order. The First Purchase Order … Read More
Court of Appeal Upholds Stay Based on Contractual Choice of Forum/Arbitration Clause Against Non-Contracting Parties
In Novatrax International Inc. v. Hägele Landtechnik GmbH, 2016 ONCA 771, the plaintiff and the defendant Hägele were parties to an Exclusive Sales Agreement (“ESA”). Hägele terminated the ESA. The plaintiff sued Hägele, its individual principals and Cleanfix, a North American company related to Hägele. The defendants collectively moved to stay the Plaintiff’s claim, relying on a forum selection clause in the ESA which stated: “The contractual parties agree that German law is binding and to settle any disputes by a binding arbitration through the “Industrie und Handelskammer” (Chamber of Commerce) in Frankfurt.” The motion judge granted the stay, despite the fact that only Hägele, and not the other defendants, was a party to the ESA. The plaintiff appealed on two grounds: that the motion judge erred in i) interpreting the scope of the forum selection clause and ii) staying the action against the defendants who were not party to the … Read More
Toronto Attorneys for Enforcement of U.S. Judgments in Ontario, Canada
American judgments, from either State or U.S. Federal Courts may be recognised and enforced in Ontario, Canada. The test for whether the Court of Ontario will recognize and enforce a U.S. judgment is as follows: did the U.S. Court have jurisdiction, in accordance with the principles of private international law as applied by Canadian courts? is the judgment final and conclusive? is the judgment for a definite and ascertainable sum of money or, if not a money judgment (e.g. an injunction), are its terms sufficiently clear, limited in scope and do the principles of comity require the domestic court to enforce it? The Ontario Court will also consider the following, limited defences of: fraud (i.e. whether the U.S. judgment was obtained by fraud); natural justice (i.e. whether the U.S. proceedings were contrary to Canadian notions of fundamental justice); and public policy (i.e. whether the U.S. judgment was contrary to our view … 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
New Study Reveals Trends in Canadian Defamation Cases
A new study by a Canadian law professor analysed reported Canadian defamation lawsuit decisions between 1973-1983 and between 2003-2013. The results of the study revealed some interesting trends, including: in cases between 1973 and 1983, 53% of claims were successful. However, in cases between 2003-13, only 28% claims were successful. The study’s author suggests various theories for the decline in the success rate, including that courts are seeking to give greater protection to freedom of expression; during the 2003-13 period, plaintiffs were far more successful in cases involving “new media” (email or internet), with a 62% success rate (more than double the success rate for cases between 2003-13 considered as a whole). The study’s author suggests that the difference may be explained by the fact “new media” communications are less likely to be vetted and edited than publications in “old” media, and there may be better evidence of “new media” … Read More