Ontario Court of Appeal Finds Misrepresentation and Breaches of OSC Rulings Against Trump Hotel Developer
In the recently released decision of Singh v. Trump, the Ontario Court of Appeal has reversed a lower court decision and granted summary judgment in favour of two investors in the Trump International Hotel & Tower in Toronto, on the basis that the developer made representations to purchasers that purchasing the hotel condominium units would result in highly profitable rental income. The court found those representations to have been false, and that making those representations was in contravention of a previous Ontario Securities Commission ruling which prohibited the developer from marketing the hotel condominium units as a profit-making investment. The Court of Appeal also reversed the motion judge’s dismissal of claims of oppression, collusion, and breaches of fiduciary duty as against current US presidential candidate Donald Trump and other invidiual defendants, on the basis that those issues were not properly put before the summary judgment motion judge at the motion. The … 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
Vicarious Liability for Vehicle Owners under HTA Based on Possession, not Operation
The Superior Court has confirmed that a vehicle owner is vicariously liable for the negligence of another driver under the Highway Traffic Act, even if the owner consents only to the possession of the vehicle, and not its operation on the highway. In Fernandes v. Araujo et al., the owner’s insurer brought a motion for summary judgment stating that the owner was not vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence as the owner had not given permission to the driver to operate the vehicle, an ATV located on the owner’s farm, on the highway, as the driver only had a G1 license and was not licensed to use the ATV on a highway. The insurer attempted to rely on the similar decision of Newman v. Terdik, where the owner was not found to have given consent as he had expressly forbidden the driver from taking the vehicle off his farm and … Read More
Court Sets Out Notice Period to Terminate Franchise Agreement
The Ontario Superior Court in France v. Kumon Canada Inc. considered the appropriate notice period required to terminate a franchise agreement, in this case in respect to a Kumon tutoring franchise. Kumon terminated the franchise agreement with 12 months’ notice. The Plaintiff had successfully run the franchise for 20 years. There was no franchise agreement in place (as the franchise was entered into by oral agreement 20 years earlier when their franchise agreements were not in writing). The Plaintiff sued Kumon for damages, arguing that her franchise was perpetual and could not be terminated. Kumon argued that the franchise agreement could be terminated on reasonable notice, and brought a motion for summary judgment. The Court granted Kumon summary judgment, but asked for further submissions regarding the proper notice period. The Court noted that there were no cases directly on point. The Court accepted that a franchise relationship is close to an employer/employee relationship. However, … Read More
Franchise Rescission Granted Due to Deficient Disclosure
The recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in 2337310 Ontario Inc. v. 2264145 Ontario Inc., 2014 ONSC 4370, addressed a partial summary judgment motion brought by the franchisee of a cafe seeking a declaration that it was entitled to exercise its right of rescission under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 (“the Act”). The franchisee sought to rescind the franchise agreement approximately six months after entering into the agreement by arguing that the disclosure document provided by the franchisor was so deficient that it amounted to receving no disclosure at all. In contrast, the franchisor argued that the franchisee was provided with disclosure as required under the Act, and the franchisee was simply attempting to resile from a bona fide transaction due to its own incompetence and inability to operate the business successfully. The Court found a number of deficiencies in the disclosure provided by the franchisor, including failure to provide: (1) … 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
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
Toronto Arbitrators – Reasonable Fee & Good Availability
Sole Arbitrator – from $450.00 per hour, plus HST 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 … Read More
Profit Not Required to Find Use of Trademark in Normal Course of Trade
The Federal Court of Appeal in Cosmetic Warriors Limited v. Riches, McKenzie & Herbert LLP, 2019 FCA 48, set aside the decision and allowed the appeal of the Federal Court judgment allowing an appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Trade-marks, made through her delegate, a hearing officer of the Trade-marks Opposition Board, that found that the trademark had been used in the “normal course of trade” within the meaning of subsection 4(1) of the Trademarks Act, RSC 1985, c T-13 ( the “Act”) and thus maintained the registration of a trade-mark in a proceeding challenging the registration for non-use under section 45 of the Act. In issue was the trade-mark “LUSH,” as registered for use in association with “[c]lothing, namely, t-shirts.” In its decision, the Federal Court of Appeal described that: “The T-shirts and tank tops bearing the LUSH trade-mark are sold by Lush Canada in limited quantities … Read More