The Court of Appeal of Ontario decision in 1418885 Ontario Ltd. v. 2193139 Ontario Limited, 2018 ONCA 54, recently overturned a summary judgment motion decision which confirmed the importance of requisition letters in real estate transactions. In this case, the parties had entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a property with a restaurant, golf course, 12 residential apartments, a two-storey home and a banquet hall. The Agreement of Purchase and Sale included the following requisition clause: 8. TITLE SEARCH: Buyer shall be allowed until 6:00 p.m. on the 30th day of May, 2016 (Requisition Date) to examine the title to the property at his own expense and until the earlier of: (i) thirty days from the later of the Requisition Date or the date on which the conditions in this Agreement are fulfilled or otherwise waived or, (ii) five days prior to completion, to satisfy himself that there are … Read More
Ontario Court Finds Jurisdiction Resulting From Cumulative Effect of Individually Insufficient Connecting Factors
In Freshway Services Inc. v. CdEnviro Ltd., 2017 ONSC 6591, the plaintiff Ontario company contracted with the defendant Northern Irish company. The defendant was to build a waste recycling facility and install it at the plaintiff’s facility in Ontario. A third party to provide warranty coverage and servicing for components of the waste recycling plant, once it was built and delivered to Ontario. A dispute arose between the parties, and the plaintiff sued the defendant in Ontario. The defendant brought a motion to stay the Ontario action on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction. The motion judge considered the the presumptive connecting factors for jurisdiction set out by the Supreme Court in Club Resorts Ltd. v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, being whether the contract was made in the Ontario: whether the defendant was carrying on actual business in Ontario; whether the defendant is resident in Ontario; or where the … Read More
Construction Heavy Machinery & Equipment Disputes
We have experience and can act in matters relating to construction heavy machinery and equipment. Disputes often arise in connection with the purchase and sale, leasing, financing, use or operation of construction heavy machinery. Sometimes disputes arise in relation to ownership or possession of construction heavy equipment. We set out below some of the common types of disputes arising in relation to construction heavy equipment. Types of Disputes Common disputes include those related to: purchase and sale, pre-sale representations, warranties, damaged equipment, sale by auction, shipping heavy machinery and equipment, damages, loss and collapse, hire-purchase disputes, ownership and possession, and repossession by court order. Types of Construction Equipment A vast array of construction equipment is deployed in modern construction projects. Some construction companies lease and others purchase. Some have only occasional need for some construction heavy equipment. Typical construction heavy equipment and machinery includes: Backhoe loaders, breakers, bulldozers, chippers, compactors, concrete plants and pumps, conveyors, … 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
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
Business Dirty Tricks: Unfair Competition: Intentional Interference, Inducing Breach of Contract, Conspiracy and Defamation
Sometimes businesses and their stakeholders act wrongfully in seeking to advance their interests and / or harm competitors. There are often reports of the “dirty tricks” used by those in business to seek to destroy, defeat or diminish the effectiveness of a competitor. These are often unethical tactics, but sometimes such conduct is also wrongful and has been recognized by the common law as actionable in the courts for damages or injunctive or other urgent equitable relief, or prohibited by a statute which provides for a civil monetary remedy or grounds for an injunction. These causes of action have been recognized and provide the basis of lawsuits for harm, loss and damage, and in suitable circumstances, grounds for an immediate injunction or mandatory order prohibiting the further commission of the wrongful acts. In short, wrongful intentional acts causing harm, loss or damage to businesses or their stakeholders may give rise to a cause of action in common law business torts (the so-called … 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
Court of Appeal Provides Guidance on “Forum of Necessity” Doctrine
In Arsenault v. Nunavut, 2016 ONCA 207, the Plaintiff commenced a lawsuit in Ontario regarding an employment dispute with the defendant, the government of the Canadian territory of Nunavut. The motion judge concluded that Ontario did not have jurisdiction over the dispute because the dispute did not have a “real and substantial connection” with the province of Ontario, and that Nunavut was clearly the more appropriate forum to hear the dispute. The Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the motion judge had not properly considered whether Ontario was the “forum of necessity” – i.e. the doctrine allowing the Court to assume jurisdiction over a dispute, even though there is no “real and substantial connection” with Ontario, because there is no other forum in which the plaintiff can reasonably seek relief (see our previous posts regarding the doctrine of “forum of necessity” here and here). The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appeal. The Court of Appeal noted … Read More
Partnership and Contractual Disputes between Professionals (Dentists, Doctors, Accountants, Lawyers, Architects, Engineers)
Partnerships Professionals often carry on their professional practice as partners in a partnership or limited liability partnership. Partnerships can be created simply by conduct and the application of the Partnership Act or by a simple or complex partnership agreement. Joint Venture Contract – Fiduciary Duties? In other cases professionals associate in practice by participation in a contractual joint venture which, depending on the agreement and the circumstances, may or may not at law also be a partnership but, in any event, may attract the duties and obligations of partners, including fiduciary duties. Sharing Space Lastly, some professionals may consider that they are only sharing space with other professional and may be very surprised to find that the arrangement gave rise at law to unexpected obligations. Duty of Honest Performance The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Bhasin v. Hrynew, though not a case about partnerships, nonetheless has a wide-ranging impact … Read More
David Alderson, Panelist on Law Society of Upper Canada Annotated Partnership Agreement 2015 CDP
David Alderson, of Gilbertson Davis LLP, will be a panelist at the Law Society of Upper Canada Continuing Professional Development program, The Annotated Partnership Agreement 2015, on September 29, 2015 (alternate date, November 20, 2015) on the panel entitled “Review of the Differences (Legal and Drafting) Between a Partnership and a Joint Venture – Understanding the Significant Consequences”. Moderator of the panel (and Chair of the program) is Alison Manzer, Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP and co-panelist is Sunita Doobay, TaxChambers LLP. David Alderson, LL.B (Osgoode), LL.M (Lond.) is a commercial litigator with Toronto insurance and commercial litigation firm Gilbertson Davis LLP. He holds a Master of Laws degree in commercial and corporate law and has been admitted to practice in England & Wales, Bermuda and New York State, as well as Ontario. David has practised local law in England, Bermuda, Dubai and Ontario, in diverse business and commercial litigation practice … 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
Summary Judgment in Wrongful Dismissal Action in IT Sector
The plaintiff in Wellman v. The Herjavec Group Inc., 2014 ONSC 2039, whose employment with the defendant was terminated without cause after one week short of a year, was granted summary judgment and found to be entitled to damages from the defendant for wrongful dismissal on the basis of a reasonable notice period of four months. The parties had agreed that the issue of a reasonable notice could be properly considered on a motion for summary judgment and the court agreed that such a motion is more proportionate, more expeditious less expensive means than a trial to achieve a just result (citing Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7) In considering the issue the court considered the: Bardal factors; the age of the employee (including when considering mitigation it is reasonable to assume that at the plaintiff’s age there could have family responsibilities that might make him less mobile); length of service (just one factor to be taken … Read More