The Ontario Court of Appeal in Jay-Pee Drycleaners Inc. v. 2321324 Ontario Inc., 2017 ONCA 798, recently overturned a summary judgment motion decision involving the termination of a commercial lease agreement. In this case, the tenant had operated a dry cleaning business for 12 years before the lease was converted into a month-to-month tenancy. After the new landlord purchased the property and was assigned the lease, it demanded the tenant provide evidence that it had successfully completed a course related to the management of dry cleaning contaminants and waste. Even though the tenant advised that the Ministry of Environment had deemed the course to be unnecessary and the course was not available until the following year, the new landlord terminated the lease and retained a bailiff to re-enter and re-possess the premises. The tenant brought an action for damages arising from the unlawful termination of the lease. The new landlord responded with a counterclaim and brought a summary judgment motion. The … Read More
Court of Appeal States that Security for Costs Should Not be Treated Differently for Recognition and Enforcement Actions
Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation, 2017 ONCA 741 arose from an action by the Plaintiffs to enforce an Ecuadorean judgment in Ontario against the Defendant. The Defendants obtained summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claim. After the Plaintiffs appealed, the Defendant sought a security for costs against the Plaintiffs, who were non-Ontario residents from Ecuador. The Plaintiffs argued that security for costs should not be ordered because of, among other reasons, the unique nature of a recognition and enforcement action. The Plaintiffs relied on the Supreme Court of Canada decision on jurisdiction in the same action: Chevron Corp v. Yaiguaje, 2015 SCC 42, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 69. The Plaintiffs argued that the Supreme Court’s decision required courts to treat recognition and enforcement cases in a different manner than first instance actions. The Court of Appeal confirmed that courts should take a “generous” approach in finding jurisdiction in recognition and enforcement actions. … Read More
Bhasin v. Hrynew and the Duty of Good Faith in Real Estate Agreements of Purchase and Sale
The Supreme Court of Canada in Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, recognized the duty of good faith in contract and the obligations of the parties to act honestly in the performance of their contractual obligations. The duty of good faith applies to any contract, including real estate contracts such as Buyer Representation Agreements, Listing Agreements and Agreements of Purchase and Sale. As discussed in a previous blog post, Agreements of Purchase and Sale generally include a “time is of the essence” clause which means that time limits will be strictly enforced by the courts. Problems often arise when vendors refuse to agree to seemingly minor indulgences requested by purchasers such as an extension of the closing date or an extension of the deadline to provide the deposit. Two recent decisions in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice have addressed the duty of good faith, as expressed in Bhasin v. Hrynew, in the performance of Agreements of Purchase and Sale. Unfortunately for purchasers, it appears that … Read More