Our lawyers can advise and represent employers or purchasers of a business regarding the enforcement of non-compete, non-solicit clauses or confidentiality agreements. An employer or purchaser of a business who wishes to enforce a restrictive covenant can pursue an interim injunction from the Court, which prohibits the employee from breaching the covenant. Various types of injunctions may be sought, including: Injunctions enforcing post-termination restrictive covenants; Injunctions preventing the use of the employer’s confidential information. An employer or purchaser of a business can also seek damages following an employee’s breach of a covenant if there is particular loss tied to the breach. An employer or purchaser of a business can also seek damages following an employee’s breach of a covenant if there is particular loss tied to the breach. Why Gilbertson Davis LLP? Our team of lawyers are leading practitioners and provide sound advice and effective representation in time sensitive matters. When … Read More
Court of Appeal Provides Guidance on Interpretation of Success Fee Contract
In RBC Dominion Securities Inc. v. Crew Gold Corporation, 2017 ONCA 648, the Plaintiffs (“RBC”) sued the Defendant (“Crew”) for a success fee (the “Success Fee,”) that RBC alleged it was owed under an agreement for the provision of investment banking services (the “Agreement”). The Agreement provided, among other things, that RBC was entitled to the Success Fee “if a Transaction [was] completed involving any party, whether or not solicited by RBC, pursuant to an agreement to effect or otherwise complete a Transaction entered into during the term of its engagement […]”. RBC provided certain services under the Agreement. During the course of the Agreement, Crew was subject to a takeover. The takeover was not anticipated by either party. RBC was not involved in the takeover transaction. The issue at trial was whether RBC was entitled to the Success Fee for its services. The trial judge found that the … Read More
Summary Judgment Granted in Multiple Proceedings Surrounding Enforcement of Italian Judgment
The case of King v Lang Michener, 2017 ONSC 1917 (one of three related actions), began with a transaction that went awry. The Plaintiff, Gregory King, a lawyer at Aylesworth and later Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, acted in a transaction relating to a new hotel in China with an Italian company, Sincies Chiementin SpA (“Sincies”), and various other foreign individuals and businesses. Mr. King received a 5% interest in the hotel, and Aylesworth was to receive payment for legal fees. Sincies went bankrupt, and one of its assets, a $600,000.00 USD deposit, vanished. Sincies’ trustee in bankruptcy eventually sued Mr. King, among others, in Italy, to try to recover the money. Mr. King did not defend the Italian proceedings. The Italian court ruled against him, and ordered him to pay the deposit. Mr. King did not pay the judgment on the grounds that the Italian court lacked jurisdiction. Sincies’ trustee then … Read More
Toronto Litigation Lawyers for Manufacturers and Distributors
Our lawyers can provide sound advice and effective representation to manufacturers and distributors involved in actual or potential disputes or litigation. We focus on a wide variety of manufacturing industries in a broad array of legal disputes, including sale of goods, branding and brand protection, transportation and logistics, supply and outsourcing contracts, unpaid accounts, internal business disputes, construction and urgent remedies. The automotive industry, the food and beverage industry and technology industries in the Toronto – Waterloo Innovation Corridor comprise the most substantial sectors of the Ontario manufacturing landscape. We also can provide advice and representation to the many other manufacturing industries in Toronto and elsewhere in Ontario, including these: Automated Machinery and Robotics, Automotive Industry, Auto Parts Manufacturing, Building Materials, Canning and Bottling, Chemical Manufacturing and Supply, Clean Tech, Computer Equipment and Electronic Equipment, Concrete, Brick, Glass, Drywall, Lumber and Stone, Confectionery, Food and Beverage, Financial Technology, Furniture Manufactures and Importers, Glass, Bottling, Packaging and Containers, … Read More
Supreme Court Provides Guidance on Oppression Remedy
In Wilson v. Alharayeri, 2017 SCC 39, The Plaintiff, Alharayeri, was the president, CEO and a shareholder and a director of the subject Corporation. The subject corporation was incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”). In addition to common shares, the Defendant held convertible A and B preferred shares issued only to him as performance-based incentives. The A and B shares were convertible upon the corporation meeting certain performance targets in 2007. The Plaintiff held convertible C preferred shares, issued to him as an incentive for finding financing. The C shares were convertible into common shares upon the Corporation meeting a specific financial target. In early 2007, the Defendant, Wilson, began negotiating a merger with Company M to address the Corporation’s cash flow issues. At the same time, the Defendant arranged to sell some of his common shares to Company M as a result of personal financial difficulties. The Corporation’s Board … Read More
Ontario Court Identifies New Presumptive Connecting Factor in Establishing Jurisdiction
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
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
The Importance of Brand Protection
In many cases, a business’s brand, reputation, and goodwill, can be its most important assets. Customers will visit, re-visit, and refer others to a business because of the reputation created through its successful branding initiatives and quality products and services. Therefore, it is important for any business to be aware of the tools available to protect their brand from being devalued or misused by others. Some of these tools are preventative, such as by registering a trademark with CIPO. the USPTO, or other national trademark offices, and by ensuring the proper assignments or licences are set out in any contracts with any designers or users of your trademarks. The copyrights for creative works can be registered, while fashion designers can seek protection of their creations as an industrial design. Unfortunately, the more successful a trademark or brand, the more likely it is to be used by copycats, counterfeiters, and competitors to drive business … 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
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
Court Refuses to Authorize Shareholder Buyout in Absence of Oppression
The Ontario Business Corporations Act provides a wide range of remedies to a person affected by the actions of a corporation or its directors that are found to be oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or unfairly disregard the interests of that person. Most commonly, these remedies are sought by minority shareholders when actions are taken or threatened that would unfairly hurt their interests. One of those remedies is to direct the corporation, or any other person, to purchase the shares of the complainant. This remedy essentially allows shareholders to be relieved of their shares for a fair price, leaving the corporation and its remaining shareholders to carry on without further complaint from the complainant. However, this remedy does not create a free-standing right for a shareholder of a privately-held corporation to force the sale of his or her shares for any reason. This principle was recently confirmed in Wilfred v Dare et al. In that case, the complainant sought … 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
Family Business Dispute, Start Up Company Dispute, and Closely-Held Company Litigation
We have experience acting for, advising and representing those in closely-held company litigation, both arising from family business disputes and from start-up company disputes. Family Business Disputes Many businesses in Canada are family businesses or have evolved from family businesses. Family businesses present many unique challenges as they grow, as key members of the company or partnership leave the family business, or when personal relationships of the key members of the family business change or deteriorate. One of the most common differences between a family business and other established businesses, whether or not a shareholders’ agreement, partnership agreement and other legal documentation was used in the formation of the family business, is the informality in operation of the family business, including the often ignored distinction in fact between employees, shareholders, or partners – since family members take on multiple roles. Please see our webpage on Family and Closely Held Business Disputes. Start Up Company … Read More
Shareholder Disputes, Oppression Remedy, and Directors and Officers Liability
Our lawyers have acted in Ontario and other jurisdictions for small and mid-sized Ontario corporations, shareholders, directors, officers, executives and creditors in corporate disputes and shareholder disputes. We have acted in both oppression remedy action and derivative actions. Oppression Remedy The oppression remedy is a mechanism in the Ontario Business Corporations Act and the Canada Business Corporations Act to protect the interests of shareholders and stakeholders in a corporation against wrongful conduct. Whether the Ontario or Canada Act will apply depends on the jurisdiction in which the corporation was incorporated. The oppression remedy can be used to protect the interests of shareholders, directors, officers or creditors against the acts of other shareholders, the board of directors or other affiliates of the corporation. When any act or omission of the corporation or any of its affiliates effects or threatens to effect a result; the business or affairs of the corporation or any of its affiliates are, … Read More
Partnership Disputes & Joint Venture Litigation
Our lawyers have acted in Ontario and other jurisdictions for partners in small and mid-sized partnerships, and limited liability partnerships (LLPs) and contractual parties and partners in joint ventures. Partnership Disputes Partnership is a relationship between persons carrying on a business in common with a view to profit, which is not a corporation. It is one of the most commonly used business associations for small and medium-sized business. A partnership can be created at law and the Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.5 sets out rules for determining existence of partnership, though commonly the parties enter into a partnership agreement. Joint Venture – Is it a Partnership? 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. While invariably created by contractual agreement, some … Read More
Toronto Lawyers for Victims of Investment Fraud: When Investing in a Toronto Business Goes Bad
A bad investment may not be the result of market fluctuations. A false representation inducing and leading to an investment loss may be actionable at law. Often there is a promised high-yield on an investment in a company, project or property. Sometimes a loss occurs from a scheme where there is no intention by those entrusted with an investment to make the promised purchase or transfer. In Ontario, civil lawsuits for the victims of investment fraud have often been framed as claims for deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and restitution. Increasingly though, plaintiffs in lawsuits simply claim damages for losses arising directly from the tort of civil fraud. The leading case on civil fraud in Canada is the Supreme Court of Canada decision in 2014 in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, and in that case civil fraud is defined this way “… the tort of … Read More