Five Reasons People Sue After Buying or Selling Real Estate

Sabrina Saltmarsh, B.A. (Hons), J.D.Condo Litigation, Contract Disputes, Cottage Litigation, Misrepresentation, Mortgage Broker Litigation, Negligence, Professional Liability, Real Estate Agent and Broker, Real Estate Litigation0 Comments

In a heated real estate market where blind bidding and unconditional offers are necessary to compete, often times purchasers are vulnerable to pulling the trigger and asking questions afterwards. Conversely sellers are looking to capitalize on market highs and looking to sell for top dollar which often comes down to timing. These competing interests can lead to litigation when a real estate transaction doesn’t go as planned. Here are five common reasons that litigation arises from real estate transactions: 1) Breach of Contract Litigation often arises because a seller or purchaser has breached the purchase and sale agreement. There are many contractual terms that set out the rights and obligations of the respective parties in a real estate transaction including the closing date, title clearance, deposit requirements, inclusions, exclusions, and conditions. A Plaintiff commencing suit over a breach of the contract must prove that they have complied with all of … Read More

Domain Name Disputes, Counterfeit Websites, Fake Bad Reviews and Remedies

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer, Arbitrator and MediatorBreach of Non-Competition Agreement, Breach of Non-Competition Clause, Breach of Non-Solicitation Agreement, Breach of Non-Solicitation Clause, Business Defamation, Business Disputes, Business Fraud, Business Torts | Economic Torts, Civil Conspiracy to Harm, Commercial, Copyright Infringement, Cyber Fraud, Cyber Libel, Domain Name Disputes, False Light, Information Technology, Injunction & Specific Performance, Intellectual Property, Internet Defamation, Internet Fraud, Online Defamation, Passing Off, Trademark Infringement, Website Copying0 Comments

I discuss here a number of internet-based “dirty tricks” that competitors or others may deploy and which may have serious adverse consequences for you or your business. I also briefly mention the types of remedies which may be available to those victimized in this way. Confusingly Similar Domain Names  In today’s modern web-based commercial world, it is more important than ever to ensure that potential customers  and returning customers are properly connected with your website domain name, and to use domain names that are well-branded and associated with your business. It is not uncommon for competitors, cyber-squatters, or other persons to obtain control of domain names that are confusingly similar to your trademarks, business names, or your domain name. Then there is a real risk that users seeking your website are instead directed elsewhere by that confusingly similar domain name. Recovering a Domain Name In order to recover (transfer to … Read More

Toronto Arbitrators – Reasonable Fees & Good Availability

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer, Arbitrator and MediatorAgency Arbitrator, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Arbitration, Arbitrators, Brokerage Arbitrator, Business Arbitrator, Business Dispute Arbitrator, Commercial Arbitration, Commercial Arbitrator, Commercial Lease Arbitrator, Condo Arbitrator, Construction Arbitrator, Distribution Arbitrator, Employment Dispute Arbitrator, Energy Arbitrator, Franchise Arbitrator, Infrastructure Arbitrator, International Commercial Arbitrator, International Joint Venture Arbitrator, Internet Arbitrator, Investment Arbitrator, IT Arbitrator, Joint Venture Arbitrator, Labour Arbitrator, Licensing Arbitrator, Marine Arbitrator, Maritime Arbitrator, Moving Litigation to Arbitration, Partnership Arbitrator, Partnership Dispute Arbitrator, Real Estate Arbitrator, Reinsurance Arbitrator, Roster Arbitrator, Sale of Business Arbitrator, Sale of Goods Arbitrator, Shareholder Arbitrator, Shareholder Dispute Arbitrator, Technology Arbitrator, Transportation Arbitrator0 Comments

Gilbertson Davis LLP Arbitration Chambers Arbitrators  All of the Gilbertson Davis LLP Arbitration Chambers arbitrators are senior legal practitioners who also accept appointments as arbitrators. They are distinguished in their respective areas of practice and have differing legal practice backgrounds, through diversity of their legal experience in the world of reinsurance, insurance, business disputes, shareholder disputes, partnership disputes, commercial disputes, commercial leasing, construction, employment law, condo law, IT and IP, sale of goods, franchise, international trade & distribution, and marine matters, through language skills, and from foreign legal experience and accreditations. This makes a Gilbertson Davis LLP Arbitrator uniquely qualified for your consideration. Accepting Appointments & Arbitration During the Pandemic  Gilbertson Davis LLP Arbitration Chambers is open, and the chambers arbitrators are accepting appointment and progressing arbitration proceedings, despite the pandemic. Through our experience in the case management of arbitration, we can promptly progress the arbitration, from first meeting through … Read More

Shareholder’s Remedies

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer, Arbitrator and MediatorAppointing Auditor, Appointing Inspector, Business Disputes, Business Litigation, Commercial, Corporate Disputes, Corporate Litigation, Derivative Actions, Directors' and Officers' Liability, Oppression Remedies0 Comments

Shareholder Remedies Under the Ontario Business Corporations Act (“OBCA”), shareholders of a corporation have a variety of rights. Outlined below are a few rights that all shareholders should be aware they possess. Voting Rights The board of directors, under s. 115 are ultimately responsible for managing or supervising the management of the business and affairs of a corporation. Major business decisions also involve the participation of the board of directors, though sales, leases, or exchanges of all or substantially all the property of the corporation that is not in the ordinary course of business requires the approval of shareholders (s. 184(3)). Shareholders also have voting rights that allow them to control the makeup of the board of directors (s. 119(4)), and also the ability to remove directors under s. 122(1) (though this is subject to exceptions under s. 120(f)). Shareholders have additional voting rights under s. 100(2). Access to Information Rights Under s. 140(1) corporations … Read More

Move Summary Judgment Motion to Arbitration – Early Dates Available

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer, Arbitrator and MediatorAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Arbitration, Injunction & Specific Performance, Summary Judgment0 Comments

Move Summary Judgment Motion to Arbitrator With the current curtailment of complete and timely operation of the court, the alternative option of consensually moving summary judgment or other important motions to arbitration provides a timely and cost efficient alternative to court proceedings.  Parties before the courts may wish to turn to arbitration, which for at least a year in this jurisdiction, has regularly been conducted virtually, and at the pace the parties require. Parties are free to enter into an arbitration agreement specifically addressing all or part of a dispute, or only a stage of the proceedings, or a separate or discrete issue to be resolved. Arbitration is particularly well-suited for the final determination of important motions and threshold questions. The parties to a court proceeding can agree that the court proceeding be moved to arbitration for final resolution, or that only a specific stage of the proceedings or a … Read More

Defamation Law – What is a “Broadcast” or “Newspaper” under the Libel and Slander Act?

Josef FinkelCivil Litigation, Internet Defamation, Libel, Online Defamation, Slander0 Comments

We write further to our blog which discussed the short deadlines under Ontario’s Libel and Slander Act (“Act”) that apply to defamatory content which is considered a “broadcast” or “newspaper”[1]. The Act states that: No action for libel in a newspaper or in a broadcast lies unless the plaintiff has, within six weeks after the alleged libel has come to the plaintiff’s knowledge, given to the defendant notice in writing, specifying the matter complained of, which shall be served in the same manner as a statement of claim or by delivering it to a grown-up person at the chief office of the defendant. An action for a libel in a newspaper or in a broadcast shall be commenced within three months after the libel has come to the knowledge of the person defamed, but, where such an action is brought within that period, the action may include a claim for … Read More

Defamation Lawyers and the Inference of Publication

Josef FinkelAppeals, Business Defamation, Civil Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Cyber Libel, Defamation, Internet Defamation, Online Defamation0 Comments

In our blog Toronto Defamation Lawyers – Libel and Slander Law in Ontario, we suggest that in order to be successful on a defamation claim, one would have to prove that the allegedly defamatory publication was “published”, among other things. The court of appeal has provided some clarity on what it means to “publish” defamatory content. In Zoutman v. Graham, 2020 ONCA 767 (CanLII), the court contends on an appeal from a summary judgment motion, that a defamation claim requires proof that the “words were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff”. On the original summary judgment motion, the motions judge acknowledged that there was no evidence that the allegedly defamatory postings were viewed by anyone other than the parties and their lawyers. However, the motions judge drew an “inference of publication” from the totality of the circumstances. In drawing the inference of publication, the motions judge … Read More

Three Things To Know About Separation Agreements

Kimberley Wilton, B.Sc. (Hons.), B.A., J.D.Child Support, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Custody and Access, Division of Property, Divorce, Family Law, Family Law Mediation, Separation, Separation Agreements, Spousal Support0 Comments

Separation agreements are legal contracts created by two spouses, after separation. Separation agreements set out each spouse’s rights and obligations on issues such as parenting, finances, property, and support. Both married spouses and common-law spouses can enter into a separation agreement. Separation Agreements are Faster and More Economical Than Going to Court Traditional court litigation can be time-consuming and expensive. It can take years to reach a resolution in court. With litigation, the courts decide when and how a matter moves forward. Even at the best of times, many courts have a large backlog. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the courts have an even larger backlog. The court process is also expensive, and the costs are unpredictable. When negotiating a separation agreement outside of court, parties get to decide the pace and are in more control of the costs. Issues to Address in a Separation Agreement Separating spouses … Read More

China International Arbitration Award Enforced by Ontario Court

Josef FinkelArbitration, Business Litigation, Civil Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Cross-Border Litigation, Debt and Enforcing Judgments, Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards0 Comments

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

Internet Harassment: New Tort Recognized in Ontario

Josef FinkelBusiness Litigation, Business Torts | Economic Torts, Civil Litigation, Harassment0 Comments

Following up on our previous blog in which we advise that the Ontario Court of Appeal decided that there is no common law tort of harassment, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has now recognized the new tort of online harassment. In the recent decision, Caplan v. Atas, 2021 ONSC 670 (CanLII), the court recognized the inadequacies in the current legal system’s responses to internet defamation and harassment matters. The court opines that while defamation law and freedom of speech have created a balance in society which promotes both free democratic debate and protection of one’s reputation simultaneously, the internet has “cast that balance into disarray”. Recognition of the New Tort of Harassment The difficulty in the cases before the court was that the defendant was not deterred from further egregious conduct even in the face of multiple severe consequences. The defendant was also impecunious, so compensation was not a … Read More

B.C. Court Claims Jurisdiction over International Online Defamation Case

Josef FinkelArbitration, Business Litigation, Civil Liability, Civil Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Defamation, Forum Challenges, Online Defamation0 Comments

This blog post is further to our blog on the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) decision in Haaretz.com v. Goldhar, 2018 SCC 28 (CanLII) (“Haaretz”) wherein the SCC opined that Israel was a more convenient forum for an online defamation claim brought by the plaintiff in Ontario (even though the SCC recognized that Ontario had jurisdiction over the matter). The SCC considered a number of factors in its decision (all outlined in our blog). In the recent Supreme Court of British Columbia (“BCSC”) decision, Giustra v Twitter, Inc., 2021 BCSC 54 (CanLII) (“Giustra”), the BCSC confirmed that even where jurisdiction is found, a court can decline to exercise its jurisdiction under the principle that its court is not the most convenient forum for the hearing of the dispute (largely following the tenets laid out in Haaretz). The court in Giustra cited Haaretz in pointing out that the applicable law in … Read More

Commercial Mediator, David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate)

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer, Arbitrator and MediatorBusiness Mediation, Business Mediator, Commercial, Commercial Mediation, Commercial Mediation Act, Commercial Mediator, Commercial Mediators, Contract Dispute Mediation, Contract Dispute Mediator, Cross-Border Mediation, Cross-Border Mediator, Distribution Mediation, Distribution Mediator, Employment Mediation, Employment Mediator, Franchise Mediation, Franchise Mediator, Mediation, Mediators, National Mediation Rules, Technology Mediation, Technology Mediator0 Comments

David Alderson is a Commercial Mediator: Hourly Rates: $375.00 to $475.00 per hour (depending on amount of the claims), plus facilities and applicable taxes. Daily Rates and Half-day Rates available. Language: English Commercial Mediator – Approach to Resolving Disputes David Alderson seeks to be a resolver, an effective mediator, by being an interactive listener, a facilitator of communications and negotiation, and when the parties to a dispute require it, a neutral evaluator. With over 37 years of practice as a lawyer in a very wide variety of business, commercial, trade, property, distribution and franchise, technology, employment, reinsurance and marine disputes, both in local and international practices, David brings to the mediation a broad competence in facilitating the process, assisting parties to articulate their interests and to define the issues, and in subject matter neutral evaluation. He is equally at home in the context of complex, multi-party, and two-party single-issue disputes. He is … Read More

The Ontario Commercial Mediation Act, 2010 (Blog Part III)

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer, Arbitrator and MediatorAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Business Mediation, Business Mediator, Commercial Mediation, Commercial Mediation Act, Commercial Mediator, Contract Dispute Mediation, Contract Dispute Mediator, Cross-Border Mediation, Cross-Border Mediator, Distribution Mediation, Distribution Mediator, Employment Mediation, Employment Mediator, Franchise Mediation, Franchise Mediator, Mediation, Mediators, National Mediation Rules, Technology Mediation, Technology Mediator0 Comments

David Alderson is a Commercial Mediator: Hourly Rates: $375.00 to $475.00 per hour (depending on amount of the claims), plus facilities and applicable taxes. Daily Rates and Half-day Rates available. Language: English The Ontario Commercial Mediation Act, 2010 (Blog Part III) This blog post (Part III) consider the provisions of the Ontario Commercial Mediation Act 2010, S.O. 2010, c.16, Sch. 3 (the “Act”) concerning settlement agreements, enforcement of settlement, application of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, judgments, orders, the effect of filing the agreement, and enforcement of mediator’s fee. Earlier blog posts: (Part II) considers the provisions of the Act not included in an earlier blog post (Part I) or the subsequent blog post (Part III), including the mediator’s authority, prohibition of disclosure between parties, confidentiality, admissibility, and the relationship to arbitration and judicial proceedings. (Part I) considers the provisions of the Act concerning the application of that legislation, definitions contained … Read More

The Ontario Commercial Mediation Act, 2010 (Blog Part II)

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer, Arbitrator and MediatorAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Business Mediation, Business Mediator, Commercial, Commercial Mediation, Commercial Mediation Act, Commercial Mediator, Commercial Mediators, Contract Dispute Mediation, Contract Dispute Mediator, Cross-Border Mediation, Cross-Border Mediation, Cross-Border Mediator, Distribution Mediation, Distribution Mediator, Employment Mediation, Employment Mediator, Franchise Mediation, Franchise Mediator, Mediation, Mediators, National Mediation Rules, Technology Mediation, Technology Mediator0 Comments

David Alderson is a Commercial Mediator: Hourly Rates: $375.00 to $475.00 per hour (depending on amount of the claims), plus facilities and applicable taxes. Daily Rates and Half-day Rates available. The Ontario Commercial Mediation Act, 2010 (Blog Part II) This blog post (Part II) considers provisions of the Ontario Commercial Mediation Act 2010, S.O. 2010, c.16, Sch. 3 (the “Act”) not included in an earlier blog post (Part I) or the subsequent blog post (Part III), including the mediator’s authority, prohibition of disclosure between parties, confidentiality, admissibility, and the relationship to arbitration and judicial proceedings. An earlier blog post (Part I) considers the provisions of the Act concerning the application of the legislation, definitions contained in the Act, its interpretation, commencement and termination of the mediation, and the appointment of the mediator, duty of disclosure, and conduct of the mediation. A subsequent blog post (Part III) will consider the provisions of … Read More

The Ontario Commercial Mediation Act, 2010 (Blog Part I)

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer, Arbitrator and MediatorBusiness Litigation, Business Mediation, Business Mediator, Commercial Litigation, Commercial Mediation, Commercial Mediation Act, Commercial Mediator, Commercial Mediators, Contract Dispute Mediation, Contract Dispute Mediator, Cross-Border Mediation, Cross-Border Mediation, Cross-Border Mediator, Distribution Mediation, Distribution Mediator, Employment Mediation, Employment Mediator, Mediation, Mediators, National Mediation Rules, Technology Mediation, Technology Mediator0 Comments

David Alderson is a Commercial Mediator: Hourly Rates: $375.00 to $475.00 per hour (depending on amount of the claims), plus facilities and applicable taxes. Daily Rates and Half-day Rates available. The Ontario Commercial Mediation Act, 2010 (Blog Part I) This blog post (Part I) considers the provisions of the Ontario Commercial Mediation Act 2010, S.O. 2010, c.16, Sch. 3, concerning the application of that legislation, definitions contained in the Act, its interpretation, commencement and termination of the mediation, and the appointment of the mediator, duty of disclosure, and conduct of the mediation. Further blog posts on the Act: (Part II) – will consider other provisions of the Act, including the mediator’s authority, disclosure between parties, confidentiality, admissibility, and the relationship to arbitration and judicial proceedings. (Part III) – will consider other provisions of the Act concerning settlement agreements, enforcement of settlement, application of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, judgments, orders, … Read More

It’s not all about Intent! – Court of Appeal Confirms Test for Civil Conspiracy

Josef FinkelAppeals, Business Litigation, Civil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes0 Comments

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

Limitation Periods in Family Law

Kimberley Wilton, B.Sc. (Hons.), B.A., J.D.Child Support, Division of Property, Divorce, Family Law, Marriage Contracts, Separation, Separation Agreements, Spousal Support0 Comments

A limitation period is the amount of time within which the law permits one to bring a legal claim or action. Claims started after a limitation period has ended can be barred. Under the Limitations Act, there is a general two-year limitation period. In family law there are several different limitation periods that prospective and current family law clients should be aware of. Under the Family Law Act, married spouses may make a claim for equalization of net family property within the earliest of (a) two years after the marriage is terminated by divorce or judgement of nullity; (b) six years after the spouses separate and there is no reasonable prospect that they resume cohabitation; or (c) six months after the first spouse’s death. The court may extend the limitation period for bringing an equalization claim, if it is satisfied that (a) there are apparent grounds of relief; (b) relief … Read More