To Sue or Not to Sue? Failure to Sue = No Compensation

Gilbertson Davis LLPAppeals, Civil Liability, Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Contract Disputes, Real Estate Litigation0 Comments

In Griffiths v. Zambosco, 2001 CanLII 24097 (ON CA), the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) concluded that failure to sue is a bar to recovery of any compensation, even if the party to a lawsuit may otherwise have been entitled to compensation had she sued. In this case the Plaintiff sued the Appellant for negligence in respect of a vendor take back mortgage to the Plaintiff and his then-wife. The Plaintiff’s ex-wife refused to join the proceeding as a plaintiff and so the Plaintiff added her as a defendant. The trial judge found that the Appellant was negligent and awarded damages of close to $300,000 to both the Plaintiff and his ex-wife (almost $150,000 each). On appeal, the ONCA agreed with the trial judge that the Appellant owed a duty of care to both the Plaintiff and to the Plaintiff’s ex-wife. However, the ONCA did not agree with the trial … Read More

Court of Appeal Reiterates Limited Scope of Judicial Intervention to Set Aside Arbitral Awards

Sabrina Saltmarsh, B.A. (Hons), J.D.Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Appeals, Appellate Advocacy, Arbitration, By-laws, Civil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial Condos, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Litigation, Condo Arbitrator, Condo Litigation, Industrial Condos, Residential Condos0 Comments

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

The Top Four Family Dispute Resolution Options

Gilbertson Davis LLPAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Child Support, Collaborative Family Law, Custody and Access, Division of Property, Family Law, Family Law Mediation, Family Law Mediator, Marriage Contracts, Separation, Separation Agreements0 Comments

Most separating spouses do not resolve their parenting, support, and property issues in court. In fact, Canada’s Divorce Act requires separating spouses and their lawyers to try to resolve these issues through an out-of-court process unless it is inappropriate to do so.  This can be a cheaper, faster, and less acrimonious way to settle family law disputes than traditional court litigation.  These out-of-court options are referred to by the general term ‘family dispute resolution process’ (FDR). The most common forms of (FDR) processes, are negotiation, collaborative family law, mediation, and arbitration. This can be formal negotiation between lawyers or more informal negotiation between the parties themselves, with or without lawyers. Negotiation can occur when only one party has a lawyer, and the other party does not. Most separating couples try negotiation first before proceeding to other forms of FDR.   Collaborative family law is a form of negotiation, that attempts … Read More

Allegedly Defamatory Review Found not to Relate to a Matter of Public Interest

Gilbertson Davis LLPBusiness Defamation, Civil Liability, Cyber Libel, Defamation, Internet Defamation, Libel, Online Defamation, Slander0 Comments

In Echelon Environmental Inc. v. Glassdoor Inc., 2022 ONCA 391, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) dismissed the appellant’s appeal from a decision of the motion judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in which the motion judge denied the appellant’s request to dismiss the respondent’s defamation action under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (“Act”), known as the “anti-SLAPP” provision of the Act. The appeal mainly focused on whether an anonymous workplace review by an employee about his/her employer relates to a matter of public interest as required by s. 137.1(3) of the Act. The ONCA opined that on such motions, “expression is to be assessed as a whole”. As such, the question is whether: “some segment of the community would have a genuine interest in receiving information on the subject”. The court must ask: “Understood in its context, what is the impugned expression really about”? … Read More

Undocumented Trusts – No Requirement for Formal Trust Agreements

Gilbertson Davis LLPAppeals, Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Contract Disputes, Recreational Property Litigation, Trust Litigation0 Comments

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

Court Orders Removal of Fake Reviews Posted by Anonymous Reviewer

Gilbertson Davis LLPBusiness Defamation, Business Litigation, Civil Liability, Civil Litigation, Cyber Libel, Defamation, Harassment, Internet Defamation, Libel, Norwich Order, Online Defamation, Online Defamation, Online Harassment0 Comments

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!

Gilbertson Davis LLPAppeals, Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Litigation0 Comments

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?

Gilbertson Davis LLPAppeals, Arbitration, Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Arbitration0 Comments

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

Arbitration Chambers – in the Adelaide St. “Arbitration Alley”

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Lawyer, Qualified Arbitrator and MediatorArbitration, Arbitrators, Business Dispute Arbitrator, Case Management Arbitrator, Commercial Arbitrator, Employment Dispute Arbitrator, Franchise Arbitrator, International Commercial Arbitrator, International Joint Venture Arbitrator, IT Arbitrator, Joint Venture Arbitrator, Litigation Motion Arbitrator, Marine Arbitrator, Motion by Arbitrator, Moving Litigation to Arbitration, Partnership Dispute Arbitrator, Real Estate Arbitrator, Reinsurance Arbitrator, Sale of Business Arbitrator, Sale of Goods Arbitrator, Shareholder Dispute Arbitrator, Technology Arbitrator, Transportation Arbitrator0 Comments

TorontoArbitrator.com  Gilbertson Davis LLP Arbitration Chambers is established among the numerous arbitration chambers situated along or nearby the the short span of Adelaide Street between Bay and Yonge Street in the Toronto Financial District. Sole Arbitrator – from $450.00 per hour, plus HST Reasonable Fees and Good Availability  It offers experienced, independent and qualified commercial arbitrators and commercial mediators at very competitive and reasonable hourly fee rates and good availability for hearings for both substantive dispute arbitration and procedural arbitration. Commercial Arbitrators  All our arbitrators are senior legal practitioners who also accept appointments as independent 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 and partnership disputes, international trade & distribution, sale of goods, share of businesses, procurement, commercial leasing, employment, technology and marine matters, and from foreign legal … Read More

Summary Judgment – Emerging Burdens of the Summary Judgment Motion Judge

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Lawyer, Qualified Arbitrator and MediatorCivil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial Litigation, Summary Judgment0 Comments

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

Commercial Mediator, David Alderson

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Lawyer, Qualified Arbitrator and MediatorAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Business Mediation, Business Mediator, Commercial, Commercial Mediation, Commercial Mediator, Commercial Mediators, Contract Dispute Mediation, Cross-Border Mediator, Distribution Mediator, Employment Mediator, Franchise Mediator, Mediation, Mediators, Technology Mediator0 Comments

Need a Commercial Mediator? Good Availability | Fair and Reasonable Fees David Alderson is a Commercial Mediator: Hourly Rate: $550.00 per hour, plus facilities and applicable taxes. Daily Rate: $3,500 for 6 hour day and 3 hour preparation, plus facilities and applicable taxes. Language: English Commercial Mediator – Approach to Resolving Disputes David Alderson seeks to be a resolver, an effective mediator, by being an interactive listener, a facilitator of communications and negotiation, and when the parties to a dispute require it, a neutral evaluator. With over 40 years of practice as a lawyer in a very wide variety of business, commercial, trade, property, distribution and franchise, technology, employment, reinsurance and marine disputes, both in local and international practices, David brings to the mediation a broad competence in facilitating the process, assisting parties to articulate their interests and to define the issues, and in subject matter neutral evaluation. He is equally at home in … Read More

Ontario’s Commercial Mediation Act and Institutional Mediation Rules

Gilbertson Davis LLPArbitration, Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Mediation, Mediators0 Comments

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