The Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Busseri v. Doe, 2014 ONSC 819, dealt with the defendant’s motion to set aside default judgment against him in an internet defamation case. The plaintiff brought the underlying defamation action after discovering numerous posts by the defendant on a stock-related online public forum called stockhouse.com. Although the defendant was provided adequate notice of the lawsuit and the subsequent motion for an interim injunction against posting further defamatory statements, the defendant did not take any steps to defend in any way until it became clear that the default judgment ($200,000 + costs) would be enforced in the defendant’s jurisdiction. In considering a motion to set to aside default judgment, the Court must consider the following factors: (1) whether the motion to set aside the default judgment was brought without delay after the moving party learned of the default judgment; (2) whether the circumstances giving rise to the default judgment have been adequately explained; and (3) whether the moving party has an … Read More
Civil Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed on Summary Judgment Motion
In Danos v. BMW Group Financial Services Canada, 2014 ONSC 2060, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dealt with a summary judgment motion brought by the defendants to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims that it forged their signatures on car leasing documents. The plaintiffs had leased a luxury car from the defendants but failed to keep up with the lease payments. The defendants took steps to repossess the car and commenced an action to recover its losses. After receiving the defendants’ productions, the plaintiffs’ allegedly discovered that their signatures were forged on a number of leasing documents, and commenced a fresh action claiming damages arising from the alleged fraud. The defendants brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the action. The Supreme Court of Canada in Bruno Appliance and Furniture, Inc. v. Hryniak, 2014 SCC 8, recently summarized the elements of the tort of civil fraud as follows: (1) a false representation made by the defendants; (2) some level of knowledge of the falsehood of the … Read More
Court Dismisses Motion For Forum Non Conveniens
In Central Sun Mining Inc. v. Vector Engineering Inc., 2014 ONSC 1849, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the moving defendants’ motion to dismiss or stay the action on the basis that Ontario was not the convenient forum to hear this action for damages arising from a landslide in Costa Rica. The moving defendants argued that the claims were based on acts or omissions that occurred in Costa Rica and in the United States, most of the parties and witnesses lived outside Ontario and the evidence was located outside Ontario. Following on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, the burden of proof is on the party raising the forum non conveniens issue to show that another forum is in a better position to dispose fairly and efficiently of the litigation, and that another forum is clearly more appropriate than Ontario. The following factors may be considered in … Read More
Evicted Tenant Granted Relief From Forfeiture in Commercial Lease Case
In Kristen Lee Nesbitt v. RJH Reinsurance Services Inc., 2014 ONSC 2643, the landlord evicted the tenant due to alleged unpaid rent, realty taxes, water bills and arrears on a demand loan for leasehold improvements. The tenant applied to the Court for relief from forfeiture (e.g. possession of the premises) under the Commercial Tenancies Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.7, in order to continue operating its restaurant business on the premises. Since relief from forfeiture is an equitable remedy, the Court must consider the proceedings and the conduct of the parties under the circumstances, and any such terms as to payment of rent, costs, expenses, damages, compensation, penalty or the granting of an injunction to restrain any similar breach in the future. Justice Morgan found that the tenant did not appear to come to the Court with “unclean hands” as the dispute was regarding an accounting issue and the terms of the lease agreement, and it was not equitable to put the tenant out of business … Read More
Insurance Fraud: See No Evil & Pay The Piper
With Thompson’s World Insurance News reporting (May 5, 2014) that Aviva detected over C$202.84m in insurance fraud in 2013–a 19% increase over 2012–over 45 claims a day (C$553,370) it is clear that one of the world’s oldest professions must be taken increasingly seriously by insurance claims executives. Fraudsters have historically viewed insurance fraud as a relatively low risk way of building a career in criminality. Fearful of investigation and defense costs, and of punitive damages verdicts where a defense does not succeed, many insurers have often paid claims they believe to be fraudulent. It is hard to scope out the true cost of fraud unless adequate resources are devoted to the task: you don’t find what you do not actively and aggressively pursue. With Insurance Bureau of Canada estimates of insurance fraud in Canada north of $500 million a year, the cost of inaction is clear. Cost/Benefit analyses solely focused on a case by … Read More
Court Grants Summary Judgment in Employment Dispute
In Gregory Smith v. Diversity Technologies Corporation, the Plaintiff employee was terminated by the Defendant company for cause. The Defendant stated that the Plaintiff had made a sale to a customer despite being specifically instructed not to do so, and that the order disrupted the Defendant’s production process. The Plaintiff denied that he had been instructed not to sell to the customer. The Defendant argued that a Trial was necessary to resolve the credibility issues. The Judge disagreed, and, following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hyrniak v. Mauldin, stated that there was sufficient documentary evidence to allow the court to carry out a fair and just adjudication of the dispute. The Judge stated that she would consider the Defendant’s case “at its highest and best”, and set aside the credibility issues. She stated that even if the Plaintiff had disregarded the Defendant’s instructions not to sell to the customer, it was … Read More
Scooter Wars – Defamation Strikes Back
In Motoretta v. Twist & Go Power Sports, the Plaintiff and Defendant are two rival GTA scooter stores, engaged in what the Judge called the “Toronto Scooter Wars”. The Defendant’s Vespa dealership was terminated by the Canadian Vespa distributor. The Plaintiff remained an authorized Vespa dealer. The Plaintiff was suspicious that the Defendant had “bad-mouthed” it to customers on an ongoing basis. In response, the Plaintiff hired private investigators to pose as customers at the Defendant’s store. The private investigators recorded their conversations with the Defendant, which the Plaintiff alleged were defamatory. The Plaintiff scooter store brought an action for damages for defamation, and for a permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendant from further defaming the Plaintiff. The action was determined by summary judgment. The Judge found that the Defendant’s statements to the private investigators had defamed the Plaintiff. The Defendant argued that the statements did not meet the legal test of defamation because … Read More
Leave to Bring Summary Judgment Motion Denied in Dog Bite Lawsuit
In Dickson v. Di Michele, 2014 ONSC 2513, the plaintiff claimed the defendants’ dog attacked her while she was delivering a pizza and sued the defendants for damages under the Dog Owners’ Liability Act. After the plaintiff set the action down for trial, the plaintiff brought a motion requesting leave of the court to bring a summary judgment motion with respect to liability and contributory negligence, while leaving the issue of damages for trial. The defendants argued that leave should be denied since the well-established test required the plaintiff to prove a substantial or unexpected change in circumstances since the action was set down for trial. Justice Bale found that the issue was whether the proposed summary judgment motion was likely to provide a “proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result than going to trial”, citing the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Hyrniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7. After considering the evidence, Justice Bale held … Read More
Summary Judgment Granted in Condominium Maintenance and Repair Case
In Patriarcki v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 621, 2014 ONSC 1507, the self-represented plaintiff sued her condominium corporation and the condominium corporation’s contractor alleging that they negligently repaired and replaced a boiler in her condominium unit which exposed her to toxic fumes that made her very sick. The defendants brought a summary judgment motion seeking to dismiss the claims against them. The Court considered the guidance recently provided in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, with respect to summary judgment motion principles before providing its analysis of the case. The issue was whether there was a genuine issue for trial in light of the plaintiff’s alleged failure to present any evidence of liability on the part of the defendants. Although the plaintiff relied on a number of medical reports which opined that her health problems were caused by gas leaks from the boiler, the Court found that the … Read More
Advocacy Lessons from the Law Society of Upper Canada in re Trinity Western University
In the aftermath of yesterday’s historic debate before the Law Society of Upper Canada, in which the application of Trinity Western University for accreditation of a law degree was rejected 28-21, with one abstention, a number of colleagues asked me about the tactical considerations involved in this two-day process. TWU entered the second day of the Ontario debate buoyed by a 20-6 decision by the Law Society of British Columbia to grant accreditation. Those who followed the Ontario debate saw that TWU President Kuhn took the podium, instead of his appointed counsel. He led with various hurtful statements made about his University and about Christians, and suggested that to deny accreditation would be to validate such statements. He then asserted the right of the University to operate a law school. A Teaching Moment This event will, one day, appear in advocacy textbooks in chapters about cases about squandered opportunities. What made it a … Read More
Court Finds Foreign Hotel Operator Properly Served in Ontario
In Klein v. Occidental Hotels & Resorts, 2014 ONSC 2221, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the issue of whether a foreign hotel operator was properly served with a claim made in Ontario with respect to an accident that occurred at its hotel in the Dominican Republic. In this case, the Plaintiff purportedly served the claim on the receptionist at the address of the hotel operator’s office in Toronto. The hotel operator argued that it does not have any offices in Ontario nor does it carry on business in Ontario, and the location where the claim was purportedly served was the address of the marketing company it uses in Ontario. The hotel operator maintained that the marketing company was not its agent. In considering whether the hotel operator was properly served, Justice Healey considered the three-part test to determine whether a corporation is carrying on business in Ontario: (i) has the corporation carried on business in the jurisdiction for a sufficiently substantial period of time; (ii) … Read More
Court of Appeal Confirms Haunted House is not a Latent Defect in Real Estate Purchase and Sale
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released its endorsement in 1784773 Ontario Inc. v. K-W Labour Association Inc., 2014 ONCA 288, a case which involved the purchase and sale of a “haunted” commercial property. In this case, the purchaser sued the vendor after hearing rumours that the property was haunted by ghosts of people who were murdered or had died on the property. The purchaser alleged that the vendor failed to disclose these latent defects in the property. The vendor brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the claims against it. The judge hearing the summary judgment motion held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial for the following reasons: (i) there was no evidence that anyone died on the property, either by natural causes or some criminal act; (ii) the vendor was not required to disclose that someone had died on the property or that the property may be haunted; (iii) there was no evidence as to how the purchaser could prove … Read More
Mixed Results in Summary Judgment Motion in Parking Lot Slip and Fall Case
In Wiseman v. Carleton Place Oil Inc., 2014 ONSC 1987, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the summary judgment motion brought by the two remaining Defendants in a case involving a slip and fall in a Tim Hortons parking lot. The Plaintiff alleged that she broke her wrist when she slipped and fell on accumulated snow along the curb of the drive-through lane. The owner of the parking lot took the position that they had satisfied their duty of care by contracting out for snow removal on the premises. The snow removal contractor argued that they had performed all their contractual obligations on the day of the incident. After summarizing the law on summary judgment as set out by Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, Justice Pedlar held that there were genuine issues requiring a trial in respect to whether the owner was negligent in designing a parking lot that required customers to step over the drive-through curbing to … Read More
Court of Appeal Rules Insurance Not Voided by Expired License
In Kozel v. The Personal Insurance Company, an Ontario driver had an automobile insurance policy with the appellant insurance company. The driver severely injured a motorcyclist in an automobile accident in Florida. The injured motorcyclist sued the Ontario driver. At the time of the accident, the driver was driving with an expired license, in breach of a statutory condition of her insurance policy. The driver asked the Court to order the insurance company to defend her against the motorcyclist’s lawsuit under the liability coverage of her automobile insurance policy. The insurance company refused to defend the driver because she was in breach of the policy. The Court of Appeal considered whether the driver should be excused from her breach of the policy. The Court considered whether to grant “relief from forfeiture” under section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act (which states that “A court may grant relief against penalties and forfeitures, on such terms … Read More
Partial Summary Judgment in Franchise Disclosure Case
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in Caffe Demetre v. 2249027 Ontario Inc., 2014 ONSC 2133, involved a partial summary judgment motion to dismiss the franchisee’s rescission claims (in its counterclaim) under the franchise disclosure legislation in Ontario, the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 (the “Act”). The Act provides the franchisee with the extraordinary right to rescind the franchise agreement: (i) within 60 days after receiving the disclosure documents; or (ii) within 2 years after entering in to the franchise agreement if the franchisor never provided the disclosure documents. The issue arose when the franchisee received the disclosure documents but attempted to rely on the 2 year rescission period, arguing that the disclosure documents contained “stark and material deficiencies” so as to be amount to no disclosure at all. The franchisee alleged that the franchisor failed to disclose material facts including ongoing litigation against the previous franchisee, implementation and amendment of operational policies, and the cost of remodelling and renovations. Following on the guidance provided by the Supreme Court … Read More
Court of Appeal Defines Key Terms Relating to Injunctions
In 1711811 Ontario Ltd. (AdLine) v. Buckley Insurance Brokers Ltd. a dispute arose between the parties regarding access to a laneway, resulting in three Court endorsements referring to “interim”, “interlocutory”, “permanent”, and “mandatory” injunctive relief. The Court of Appeal took the opportunity to clarify these key terms relating to injunctions: Interim injunction: Pre-trial relief, which may be sought with or without notice to the other party. Argument in an interim injunction proceeding is usually brief. The injunction is typically for a short, defined period of time. Interlocutory injunction: Pre-trial relief, again restraining a party for a limited period of time, but often for longer than an interim injunction (such as until trial or other disposition of the action). Argument in an interlocutory injunction proceeding is typically lengthier than in an interim injunction proceeding, and involves both parties. The test for an interlocutory injunction is set out in in RJR-MacDonald, and recognizes that the Court does not have the ability … 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