Franchise Rescission Granted Due to Deficient Disclosure

Nick P. Poon, B.Sc. (Hons.), B.A., J.D.Civil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation, Franchise Law, Summary Judgment0 Comments

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

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.Commercial Litigation, Injunction & Specific Performance, Summary Judgment0 Comments

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

Nick P. Poon, B.Sc. (Hons.), B.A., J.D.Civil Litigation, Commercial, Summary Judgment0 Comments

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

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Lawyer, Qualified Arbitrator and MediatorAgency Arbitrator, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Arbitration, Arbitrators, Brokerage Arbitrator, Business Arbitrator, Business Dispute Arbitrator, Commercial Arbitration, Commercial Arbitrator, Commercial Lease Arbitrator, Condo Arbitrator, Construction Arbitrator, Distribution Arbitrator, Employment Dispute Arbitrator, Energy Arbitrator, Franchise Arbitrator, Infrastructure Arbitrator, International Commercial Arbitrator, International Joint Venture Arbitrator, Internet Arbitrator, Investment Arbitrator, IT Arbitrator, Joint Venture Arbitrator, Labour Arbitrator, Licensing Arbitrator, Marine Arbitrator, Maritime Arbitrator, Moving Litigation to Arbitration, Partnership Arbitrator, Partnership Dispute Arbitrator, Real Estate Arbitrator, Reinsurance Arbitrator, Roster Arbitrator, Sale of Business Arbitrator, Sale of Goods Arbitrator, Shareholder Arbitrator, Shareholder Dispute Arbitrator, Technology Arbitrator, Transportation Arbitrator0 Comments

Sole Arbitrator – from $495.00 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

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Lawyer, Qualified Arbitrator and MediatorAppellate Advocacy, Brand Protection, Commercial, Distribution Agreements, Trademark Infringement0 Comments

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