In the recent Court of Appeal decision of Mensula Bancorp Inc. v. Halton Condominium Corporation No. 137, the Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision setting aside an arbitrator’s award, on the basis that the approach taken by the learned application judge was contrary to that mandated by Alectra Utilities Corporation v. Solar Power Network Inc., 2019 ONCA 254, 145 O.R. (3d) 481, leave to appeal refused, [2019] S.C.C.A. No. 202 (Alectra). Background The Halton Condominium Corporation 137 (HCC 137) located in Oakville has 82 residential units and 166 parking units located within it’s parking garage, along with common elements such as a lobby and elevators. The parking units comprise of parking for the residential unit owners (the Residential Parking) along with 43 commercial parking units (the Commercial Parking) owned by the defendant Mensula Bancorp Inc. (Mensula), Mensula does not own any residential units and its business is located … Read More
Undocumented Trusts – No Requirement for Formal Trust Agreements
In the recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”), Corvello v. Colucci, 2022 ONCA 159, the ONCA confirmed that a trust can exist even where there is no written trust agreement. At issue in the case was the ownership of a land use permit which allowed the holder(s) of the permit to build on and use the land for recreational purposes. In the court of first instance, the appellant took the position that the permit belonged to him alone. However, the trial judge determined that the appellant actually held the permit “in trust for himself and the respondents as beneficial owners”. On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in law and in fact by determining that an undocumented trust agreement existed. The ONCA advised that it is trite law that a valid trust requires “three certainties: certainty of intention to create a trust, certainty of … Read More
Family Violence: New Tort Recognized in Ontario
In the recent decision, Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2022 ONSC 1303, the court recognized the new tort of “family violence” as a civil remedy, outside of the scope of family/criminal liability. The court awarded $150,000 “in compensatory, aggravated, and punitive damages for the tort of family violence”, recognizing that such an award “is well-outside the normal boundaries of family law”. Recognition of the New Tort of Family Violence The court recognized that the Divorce Act “does not create a complete statutory scheme to address all the legal issues that arise in a situation of alleged family violence” and does not provide the victim of family violence “with a direct avenue to obtain reparations for harms that flow directly from family violence and that go well-beyond the economic fallout of the marriage”. Further, the Divorce Act prohibits consideration of “misconduct” when making a spousal award. At “its heart, spousal support is compensatory … 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
Court Orders Removal of Fake Reviews Posted by Anonymous Reviewer
In Obsidian Group Inc. v. Google LLC, 2022 ONSC 848, the moving party brought a motion, prior to commencing its civil proceeding, for an interim injunction requiring the removal of certain messages about it posted on its Google review page by a pseudonymous reviewer. It also sought a Norwich Order (an order requiring an innocent third party to provide certain information) directing the respondent to divulge identifying information regarding the unknown reviewer. The court found that there were “strong grounds for suspecting that” the reviews are fake. The court also found that it “would not surprise anyone” given the content of the reviews that they are “causing continuous damage” to the business of the applicant. The reviews seem “designed to discourage people from ever booking a room at the hotel” of the applicant. Further, according to statistics provided by the applicant, the reviews were “accessed several thousand times since they … Read More
Waiving a Contractual Right May Not Be as Easy as You Might Think!
In the recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”), Jack Ganz Consulting Ltd. v. Recipe Unlimited Corporation, 2021 ONCA 907, the ONCA set aside the decision of the motion judge which dismissed the plaintiff’s claim on a motion for summary judgment brought by the respondent. The ONCA opined that the motion judge made an error in law by finding that the appellant had waived the auto renewal provision of the consulting agreement that forms the basis of the dispute. The motion judge’s decision stems largely from the appellant’s representative’s email in which he stated “Let this email serve to remove the auto renewal from the contract”. The motion judge found that this email resulted in a waiver of the auto renewal provision of the consulting agreement by the appellant, and that the waiver was accepted by the respondent in a subsequent email. Though the ONCA conceded that a … Read More
Arbitration and Summary Judgment – Is Summary Judgment Available in Arbitration Matters?
In the arbitration preceding the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“OSCJ”) decision, Optiva Inc. v, Tbaytel, 2021 ONSC 2929 (CanLII), the respondent successfully brought a motion for summary judgment before a sole arbitrator. The applicant then appealed the arbitrator’s award to the OSCJ, arguing, among other things, that the arbitrator could not, absent consent of the applicant, proceed by way of summary judgment. The OSCJ disagreed with the respondent’s position, instead affirming that the “arbitrator could elect to proceed by summary judgment absent the consent of [the applicant]”. The court cited, as authority for its conclusion, section 20(1) of the Arbitration Act, which states: 20 (1) The arbitral tribunal may determine the procedure to be followed in the arbitration, in accordance with this Act. The OSCJ opined that “summary judgment should be available to the parties in an arbitration subject to the requirement” that the process: Allows the arbitrator to … 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
Summary Judgment – Emerging Burdens of the Summary Judgment Motion Judge
Summary Judgment – Emerging Burdens of the Summary Judgment Motion Judge[i] David Alderson[ii], Senior Counsel – Commercial Litigation, at Gilbertson Davis LLP, co-counsel for the 13 plaintiffs (one of which was Mauldin), that responded to the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin[iii], that responded below to the appeal in the Ontario Court of Appeal, and that obtained summary judgment in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, being the judgment which was appealed, has written two chapters of the Annual Review of Civil Litigation[iv], which if read together comprise a seven year survey of the appellate cases across Canada considering Hryniak and summary judgment. The chapter entitled Sentinels of the Hryniak Culture Shift: Four Years On[v], included in the Annual Review of Civil Litigation 2018[vi] covers appellate cases for the first four years following the Supreme Court of Canada decision. The second chapter Emerging Burdens of the Summary Judgment Motion … Read More
Breach of Agreement of Purchase and Sale – What are Your Options?
The Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) in Ching v. Pier 27 Toronto Inc., 2021 ONCA 551 (CanLII), recently outlined the options an innocent party to an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) has upon the other party breaching (i.e. repudiating) the APS. General Principles Repudiation is the refusal of one party to an APS to abide by the terms of the APS. Repudiation by one party does not in itself result in the termination of the APS. Rather, repudiation provides the innocent party (i.e. the non-repudiating party) to the APS with the following choices: Accept the repudiation (i.e. disaffirm the APS); or Treat the APS as subsisting (i.e. affirm the APS). The innocent party generally has a reasonable period of time to choose whether to disaffirm or affirm the APS. However, waiting too long may result in a court determining that the APS has been affirmed. During this reasonable waiting … Read More
Recognition of Foreign Judgments – The Ontario Courts will not Recognize Enforcement Orders (a.k.a. “Ricochet Judgments”)
In H.M.B. Holdings Ltd. v. Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda, 2021 ONSC 2307, on a summary judgment motion, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“OSCJ”) found that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and subsequently dismissed the plaintiff’s action (commenced on May 6, 2019) for the recognition of a money judgment that it obtained against the defendant in British Columbia in 2017 (“BC Judgment”). The BC Judgment was a default judgment recognizing and enforcing a judgment of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom which the plaintiff obtained in 2014 (“Privy Council Judgment”). The defendant argued that: The plaintiff was attempting to avoid seeking recognition and enforcement of the original Privy Council Judgment in Ontario by seeking to recognize and enforce the derivative BC Judgment instead; The plaintiff would be out of time to seek recognition of the Privy Council Judgment in Ontario (because of the expiry … 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
Ontario’s Commercial Mediation Act and Institutional Mediation Rules
Further to our blogs (Part I, Part II, and Part III) on Ontario’s Commercial Mediation Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c. 16, Sched. 3 (the “Act”), where we provided an outline of the various sections of the Act, this blog endeavours to neutrally highlight some, but not all, of the major differences between the Act and some of the popular institutional mediation rules. In particular, we contrast the Act with the following institutional mediation rules: ADRIC National Mediation Rules, ICC Mediation Rules, WIPO Mediation Rules, and LCIA Mediation Rules (collectively the “Rules”). This blog does not attempt to outline any of the similarities between the Act and the Rules, though some similarities may surface within the blog nonetheless. Rather, this blog serves only to impartially outline differences between the Act and the Rules. Application The Act applies automatically to any mediation of a commercial dispute, subject to a number of exceptions … Read More
Purchaser Breached Agreement of Purchase and Sale? Damages Awards and Importance of Mitigation
In the Court of Appeal’s (“ONCA”) recent decision Tribute (Springwater) Limited v. Atif, 2021 ONCA 463 (CanLII) the ONCA clarifies the law regarding damages and mitigation in cases involving aborted real estate transactions. This decision involves an appeal from a summary judgment granting the plaintiff seller damages for the defendant purchaser’s failure to close a residential real estate transaction. Damages The ONCA advises that damages in a failed real estate transaction are generally determined “based on the difference between the agreed sale price under the parties’ agreement of purchase and sale and the market value of the property at the date set for closing”. Depending on context, a court may choose a different date, other than the date for closing. There may also be other damages, such as carrying costs and other expenses incurred by the plaintiff while holding the property for a subsequent sale. Mitigation The ONCA states that … Read More
Contract Lawyers – The Duty of Good Faith – Update on Bhasin v Hrynew
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) recently released its decision in Wastech Services Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, 2021 SCC 7 (CanLII) which clarifies the operation of the duty to exercise contractual discretion in good faith described in the seminal case, Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71 (CanLII), [2014] 3 SCR 494. The SCC confirms that where a party exercises a discretionary power under a contract, it must do so in good faith (meaning that parties must exercise their contractual duties honestly, reasonably, and not capriciously or arbitrarily). If a party violates the duty of good faith, the contract is breached. The SCC opined that the following question must be asked when deciding if a party breached the duty of good faith: Was the exercise of contractual discretion unconnected to the purpose for which the contract granted discretion? If the answer is yes, then the party has … Read More
Defamation Law – What is a “Broadcast” or “Newspaper” under the Libel and Slander Act?
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
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