Toronto Cannabis Retail Franchise Arbitrator with Reasonable Fee Rate
David is a Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb) who has been appointed sole arbitrator in commercial disputes by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. He is a full member of the ADR Institute of Ontario and the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society and appears on each of their rosters of arbitrators. He accepts appointment as arbitrator in Cannabis Retail franchise, distribution and licensing disputes. (click here) Sole Arbitrator – $450.00 per hour, plus HST David accepts appointment as sole or panel arbitrator in cannabis retain franchise, distribution, and licencing disputes (click here), whether domestic or international international dimension. As legal counsel, David has extensive experience in distribution disputes. David has practiced franchise law in Ontario, in connection with franchisors located in Ontario and the U.S. His experience in franchise law includes representation in proceedings (and potential proceedings) concerning rescission and damages claims, counterclaims of franchisors, termination of franchise agreements, opinions on the application … Read More
Toronto Condo Arbitrator – Independent, Reasonable Fees and Available
David Alderson, LL.B., LL.M, Q.Arb – Condo Dispute Arbitrator Sole Arbitrator – $450.00 per hour, plus HST David has been accredited by the ADR Institute as Canada as a Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb). He accepts appointments as a commercial arbitrator, including as condominium dispute arbitrator, at a reasonable hourly fee rate, plus facilities and applicable taxes) and with good availability. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has appointed David in commercial (including condominium) arbitration matters. David is a member of the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society, and has successfully completed the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society Gold Standard Course in Commercial Arbitration. He is also a Full Member of the ADR Institute of Ontario and appears in its Member Directory. He has legal experience in arbitration in under different institutional and ad hoc rules, in a wide variety of matters. David accepts appointment as sole arbitrator and party-appointed arbitrator in a wide variety of condominium disputes. David has … Read More
Commercial Lease Dispute Arbitrator – Leasing Disputes and Rent Arbitration
David Alderson, LL.B., LL.M, Qualified Arbitrator – Arbitrator for Commercial Lease Disputes Sole Arbitrator – $450.00 per hour, plus HST David has been accredited by the ADR Institute as Canada as a Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb). He accepts appointments as a commercial arbitrator, including as commercial lease dispute arbitrator, at reasonable hourly rates and with good availability. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has appointed David in commercial arbitration matters. David is a member of the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society, and has successfully completed the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society Gold Standard Course in Commercial Arbitration. He is also a Full Member of the ADR Institute of Ontario and appears in its Member Directory. David is Member Roster Arbitrator on the Ontario Bar Association Remote Arbitration and Mediation List. Local Experience David has appeared as a barrister in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (including the Commercial List), the Divisional Court, the Ontario Court of Appeal, the … Read More
Toronto Arbitrator for Shareholder Disputes, Partnership Disputes and Property Disputes
David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M, Q.Arb: Commercial Arbitrator for Shareholder Disputes, Partnership Disputes and Joint Venture Disputes Competitive Hourly Fee Rates Offered. Sole Arbitrator – $450.00 per hour, plus HST David has been accredited by the ADR Institute as Canada as a Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb). He accepts appointments as a commercial arbitrator (sole arbitrator and party appointee) at reasonable hourly rates and with good availability. He accepts appointment as arbitrator in shareholder disputes, partnership disputes and joint venture disputes. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has appointed David as arbitrator in commercial arbitration matters. David is a member of the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society, and has successfully completed the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society Gold Standard Course in Commercial Arbitration. He is also a Full Member of the ADR Institute of Ontario and appears in its Member Directory. David is on the Member Arbitrator on the Ontario Bar Association Remote Arbitration and Mediation Member Roster. David has … Read More
Toronto Commercial Arbitrator – David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M, Qualified Arbitrator
Toronto Commercial Arbitrator – David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M, Qualified Arbitrator at Reasonable Hourly Rates Sole Arbitrator – $450/hr, plus HST Background David has been accredited by the ADR Institute as Canada as a Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb). He accepts appointments as a commercial arbitrator, international commercial arbitrator and as a business dispute arbitrator, at reasonable hourly rates and with good availability. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has appointed David in commercial arbitration matters. David is a member of the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society, and has successfully completed their Gold Standard Course in Commercial Arbitration. He is also a Full Member of the ADR Institute of Ontario and appears in its Member Directory. David has lived and practiced commercial litigation and commercial arbitration in Ontario, England, Bermuda and Dubai, in a wide variety of disputes in a diverse range of businesses and industries. He is also admitted in New York State. His LL.B (Osgoode) … Read More
Adjournment Request Denied! Ontario Court Recognizes Arbitral Award from China
In the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“ONSC”), Xiamen International Trade Group Co., Ltd. v. LinkGlobal Food Inc., 2023 ONSC 6491, the applicant sought the recognition and enforcement of an arbitration judgment of the Xiamen Arbitration Commission (the “Award”). The underlying arbitration dispute related to a contract entered into by the parties wherein the applicant was to purchase protective masks from the respondent for the purchase price of US $532,224.00. The contract between the parties contained an arbitration clause and a choice of law clause providing that the law of the People’s Republic of China governed any dispute over the contract between the parties. In the arbitral proceeding in China, the applicant sought a refund of the purchase price of the masks and compensation for other costs incurred. A panel of three arbitrators unanimously ruled in favour of the applicant and granted the Award. As the … Read More
Failure to Comply with Court Order can Result in Dismissal of Case
In the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”), Steinberg v. Adderley, 2023 ONCA 725, the ONCA dismissed the appellant’s appeal of an order finding him in contempt of a court order and dismissing his action. In this case, the appellant was ordered by two different judges to attend at a medical examination, but failed to do so. As a result, the respondent brought a motion to find the appellant in contempt of the orders, which motion was granted. At the hearing of the appeal of the motion judge’s decision, the appellant argued that the motion judge erred by not treating contempt as an order of last resort and by not accepting the appellant’s excuse for failing to comply with previous court orders, being that he was allegedly unable to travel in order to attend the medical examination. The ONCA rejected the appellant’s grounds for appeal, stating that … Read More
Ontario Superior Court of Justice Finds Expired Arbitration Award Relevant in Motion for Injunctive Relief
In Rogers v. TELUS Communications Inc., 2023 ONSC 5398, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that the terms of an expired arbitration decision are relevant when a party seeks injunctive relief that contradicts its terms. The moving and responding parties are both prominent competitors in the Canadian telecommunications market. Under a requirement imposed by the Government of Canada, their customers have the reciprocal ability to “roam” on the other carrier’s network in areas where their own carrier does not provide coverage. This obligation allows Canadian customers to access wireless services across the country. For a time, the parties did not agree on what was displayed to customers when they were roaming on a competitor’s network. The primary dispute was whether the network identifier (“NID”) displayed in the top-left corner of most mobile devices would connote an extension of their own carrier’s network (i.e. “[Carrier]-EXT”), or if it would notify customers … Read More
Ontario Court of Appeal Comments on the Oppression Remedy – Oppression is Focused on Fairness and Equity, not on Legal Rights
In the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”), Pereira v. TYLT Technologies Inc. (TYLTGO), 2023 ONCA 682, the appellant successfully appealed a judgment dismissing his application for an oppression remedy under the Canada Business Corporations Act, RSC 1985, c C-44 (the “CBCA”). The appellant argued that the application judge erred in only considering the appellant’s expectations as an employee and failing to consider his expectations as a shareholder. The ONCA opined that the application judge took an “overly narrow” approach by placing focus mostly on the documents signed by the parties and not considering all of the circumstances. The ONCA considered some of the major principles related to the oppression remedy, including the following: Oppression is an equitable remedy which seeks to ensure fairness. Thus, conduct found to be oppressive does not need to be “unlawful” per se, because oppression is focused on “fairness and equity”, rather … Read More
Bald and Unsubstantiated Allegations May Lift the Presumptive Limit on Costs of $50,000 in anti-SLAPP Motions
We recently blogged on the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) decision in Park Lawn Corporation v. Kahu Capital Partners Ltd., 2023 ONCA 129, where the ONCA advised that costs awards in motions brought under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, a provision introduced in 2015 to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation (“SLAPP”), should not generally exceed $50,000 on a full indemnity basis (as the procedure was meant to be “efficient and inexpensive”). In an even more recent decision of the ONCA, Boyer v. Callidus Capital Corporation, 2023 ONCA 311, the ONCA rejected the respondent’s submission that the successful appellant’s claim for costs of $273,111.22 on a full indemnity basis was excessive, citing to the Park Lawn decision referenced above. The ONCA opined that the statutory presumption under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act is that the successful moving party be awarded its full indemnity costs … Read More
Stay of Court Proceedings in Favour of Arbitration – Standard of Proof
In the recent decision Husky Food Importers & Distributors Ltd. v. JH Whittaker & Sons Limited, 2023 ONCA 260, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) reviewed the law of international commercial arbitration, and in particular opined on the issue of the standard of proof that a party needs to meet in order for the court to grant a stay of a court proceeding pursuant to section 9 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017 (the “Act”), in favour or arbitration. Section 9 of the Act states as follows: Where, pursuant to article II (3) of the Convention or article 8 of the Model Law, a court refers the parties to arbitration, the proceedings of the court are stayed with respect to the matters to which the arbitration relates. The appellant submitted that the proper analytical framework for assessing a request to stay an action under the Act was set out in the … Read More
Ontario Court of Appeal Says Costs on anti-SLAPP Motions Should not Generally Exceed $50,000
In the recent decision, Park Lawn Corporation v. Kahu Capital Partners Ltd., 2023 ONCA 129, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) provides welcome guidance on s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, a provision introduced in 2015 to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation (“SLAPP”). The decision under review by the ONCA is that of a judge’s dismissal of a motion brought by the appellants under s. 137.1 (“anti-SLAPP motion”). In particular, the appellants took issue with the motion judge’s conclusion that the plaintiff had proven sufficient harm caused by the defamatory statements. The appellants alleged that the motion judge failed to properly weigh the harm to the plaintiff against the public interest in protecting the appellants’ expression on matters of public interest. In dismissing the appeal, the ONCA found no reviewable error in the motion judge’s analysis, and advised that the motion judge “correctly described the legal principles … Read More
Can’t Get Financing On Time? You May Lose Your Deposit – Toronto Real Estate Lawyers
In the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”), Nguyen v. Zaza, 2023 ONCA 34, the ONCA dismissed the appellant’s appeal from a decision of a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to grant the respondent’s summary judgment motion and order forfeiture of the appellant’s deposit of $50,000 to the respondent (among other relief). The appellant was the purchaser and the respondent was the seller of the subject property. The agreement of purchase and sale at the center of the dispute between the parties specifically indicated that time was of the essence. Originally, the agreement was conditional on the appellant arranging financing and a satisfactory home inspection, but the appellant waived those conditions prior to closing. The motion judge found that on the closing date the respondent was ready, willing, and able, to close whereas the appellant did not tender the purchase price required from her … Read More