In the recent Court of Appeal ruling of 10443204 Canada Inc. v. 2701835 Ontario Inc., 2022 ONCA 745, the Court of Appeal clarified that entire agreement clauses in contracts do not shield any representor or deprive any party to a contract from remedies available for a fraudulent misrepresentation. Background In May of 2019 the appellant Chirag Patel and his corporation 2701835 Ontario Inc. (the appellants) entered into a purchase agreement (the “APS”) with the respondent 10443204 Canada Inc. (the respondent), related to the purchase of a coin laundry business located in Brampton. The APS contained an entire agreement clause of which the relevant part indicated: “There is no representation, warranty, collateral agreement or condition, affecting this Agreement other than as expressed herein.” In accordance with amended terms to the APS concerning the purchase price the appellants made a partial payment of $100,000 on closing and the balance of the purchase … 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
Procurement Dispute Arbitrator – Independent, Qualified, Reasonable Hourly Fees, and Good Availability
Procurement Arbitrator, Procurement Dispute Arbitration, Government Procurement ADR, Public Procurement Arbitrator, Goods and Services Dispute Arbitrator, Public Contract Arbitrator and P3 Contract Dispute Arbitrator Sole Arbitrator – $450.00 per hour, plus HST David Alderson is an independent, experienced and Qualified Arbitrator whose domestic and international practice in sale of goods and services, infrastructure, construction, projects, project finance and joint ventures make him an ideal choice as sole or panel arbitrator for procurement disputes involving any level of Government. The administration of arbitral services is provided by Gilbertson Davis LLP Arbitration Chambers, an established arbitration chambers serving Ontario and elsewhere, from its office in the Toronto Financial District. David Alderson has been appointed by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in commercial arbitration disputes. Procurement Disputes David can arbitrate disputes arising from contracts for goods or services involving any level of government in Canada, provinces or municipalities, multi-level joint venture, involving … Read More
Motion by Arbitrator | Application by Arbitrator | Procedure Arbitration
TorontoArbitrator.com Sole Arbitrator – from $450.00 per hour, plus HST Access to Justice Parties Agree That Motions & Applications be Heard and Determined by an Arbitrator Lawyers are already doing this to address the needs of their clients in existing civil and commercial litigation in the courts. The courts in Ontario continue to address access to justice in the time of the coronavirus, providing a triage process to determine which matters are considered urgent and should be heard. Video conference arrangements in the courts have evolved. We are mindful that both criminal and family law matters are likely to take priority both now and when traditional hearings become available post-coronavirus. Due to the current difficulty in obtaining an early date for the hearing of a motion or of an application, commercial and civil litigation lawyers are proactively addressing their client’s needs by arbitrating motions and application. They agree to do … 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
Aborting A Real Estate Deal Can Have Major Consequences
A recent Court of Appeal ruling illustrates the severe consequences that can flow from aborting a real estate transaction. In the decision of Joo v. Tran, 2021 ONCA 107, the Court of Appeal declined to give effect to a term that was included in an agreement of purchase and sale (APS), on the basis that such an interpretation of the clause would have resulted in an absurdity. The clause indicated that the vendors would discharge any encumbrances on or before closing, either through sale proceeds or by way of a solicitor’s undertaking, which term was included in Schedule A of the APS. The decision arose from the appeal of a ruling on a summary judgment motion brought by the seller, who sued the purchaser in a real estate transaction for breach of contract, after the purchaser expressing concerns regarding utility easements on the property, aborted the real estate transaction. The … 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
Are Examinations by Video Conference the “New Normal” During COVID-19?
On March 17, 2020, Ontario declared a State of Emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic and ushered in a new era of physical and social distancing rules. Individuals are required to maintain a minimum distance of two metres from any other person who is not a member of the same household. Gatherings of more than five people are banned unless they are members of a single household. Since March 17, 2020, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has suspended all regular operations, including hearings for civil matters except urgent and time-sensitive motions and applications and other limited matters such as consent motions in writing. Most of these hearings are conducted in writing, or remotely by telephone or video conference, due to physical and social distancing rules. In-person hearings would only be granted in very limited circumstances. Although the Court may be closed for the time being, civil litigants and their … Read More
Recognition of Foreign Divorces in Ontario
In Novikova v Lyzo, 2019 ONCA 821, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the grounds in which foreign divorces are recognized in Canada. The parties in this matter are Russian citizens but after moving to Canada in 2013, became permanent residents of Canada. The Appellant, Mr. Lyzo, returned to Russian and started divorce proceedings in February 2016, while Ms. Novikova stayed in Canada. In October 2016, Ms. Novikova commenced family law proceedings in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Mr. Lyzo obtained a divorce from Ms. Novikova on June 8, 2016 in Russia. Ms. Novikova did not receive the notice of the divorce application as these letters were sent to her parent’s address in Russia. Ms. Novikova also did not receive a copy of the divorce order within the appeal period. Mr. Lyzo brought a motion for summary judgement to have the Russian divorce recognized and to dismiss Ms. Novikova’s … Read More
Part Two – Timing is Everything in Real Estate Agreements of Purchase and Sale
I had written a previous blog on the “time is of the essence” clause in real estate agreements where it was discussed that the strict adherence to any agreed upon time limits was generally the case. A recent Ontario Court of Appeal case, Fortress Carlyle Peter St. Inc. v. Ricki’s Construction and Painting Inc., serves as a reminder that the “time is of the essence” clause is not absolute and unfettered, and there are preconditions that must be satisfied for a party to rely upon and insist on time being of the essence. The facts are not overly complicated in this case. The respondent was a condominium developer in the process of acquiring properties for a proposed project in downtown Toronto. The developer entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (“APS”) with the vendor to acquire the subject property. Although the APS required the vendor to provide estoppel certificates five days prior … Read More
Partnership Disputes – Dentists, Doctors, Accountants, Lawyers, Architects and 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 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 on … Read More
Partnership Disputes Between Professionals – Dentists, Doctors, Accountants, Lawyers, Architects and 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
24 the New 36? Court of Appeal Reaffirms Presumptive Ceiling in Reasonable Notice Case
In Dawe v. The Equitable Life Insurance Company of Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that, absent exceptional circumstances, the presumptive ceiling for reasonable notice is 24 months. In Dawe, the plaintiff was a Senior Vice President of an insurance company and was terminated after 37 years of employment without cause, following a minor dispute relating to the purchase and use of promotional sporting event tickets. As a result, the plaintiff sued his employer for wrongful dismissal. Both the plaintiff and his employer moved for partial summary judgment on two issues: (1) the calculation of the proper notice period, and (2) the plaintiff’s entitlement to his employer’s bonus plan, at para 4. The plaintiff was successful on the motion for partial summary judgment and the motion judge determined that 30 months was the appropriate notice period and that the plaintiff was entitled to his bonus during this period. In … Read More