In the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“ONSC”), Roger Vanden Berghe NV v. Merinos Carpet Inc., 2023 ONSC 6728, the ONSC provided a helpful guide on some of the key principles applicable to cases involving the recognition and enforcement in Ontario of judgments from other countries. In this case the ONSC granted an application for the recognition and enforcement of a judgment from a court in Belgium; the Ghent Business Court, Kortrijk Division, First Chamber (the “Judgment”). The underlying dispute that was adjudicated in Belgium was with respect to unpaid invoices for textile orders. The respondent did not respond to the proceeding in Belgium, although summoned by a Writ of Summons. The respondent claimed that it was not properly served with the Writ of Summons, and even if it was, one of its representatives would not have been able to attend given the Covid-19 travel restrictions … 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
Recognition of Foreign Judgments – Judgment is Enforceable Regardless of Pending Appeal
In the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“ONSC”), Acteon v. Verona Medical Group, 2023 ONSC 5140, the plaintiff was successful in obtaining the recognition of a judgment issued by a court in France, the Commercial Court of Bordeaux (the “Summary Proceeding Judgment”), albeit the ONSC stayed the plaintiff’s ability to enforce the Summary Proceeding Judgment in Ontario pending the defendants’ appeal of a related judgment (the “Merits Proceeding Judgment”) in France. The main contentious issue in this recognition proceeding was the defendants’ position that the plaintiff’s Summary Proceeding Judgment was not “final” because of the defendants’ appeal of the Merits Proceeding Judgment in France. The plaintiff’s legal expert advised the ONSC that though the Summary Proceeding Judgment was a “provisional award”, it was still “final, valid, binding and fully enforceable”. The defendants’ legal expert disagreed, positing that the Summary Proceeding Judgment was only an interim decision … 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
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
Failure To Close A Real Estate Transaction Can Be Very Costly
For many reasons, an agreement of purchase and sale to buy real estate may be breached by either the seller or the purchaser. The innocent party may be entitled to significant compensation. For instance, in the recent Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) decision, Rosehaven Homes Limited v. Aluko, 2022 ONCA 817, the ONCA upheld a lower court decision granting summary judgment requiring the appellants to pay damages to the respondent arising from the appellants’ failure to complete an agreement of purchase and sale for the purchase of a home. In that case, the appellants were unable to complete the transaction because they could not obtain sufficient financing. However, the agreement was not conditional on them obtaining financing. The respondent ultimately sold the property at a loss (compared to the sale price agreed to between the parties). The lower court awarded $331,922.27 to the respondent (being the difference between the original … Read More
Entire Agreement Clause Not A Shield To Fraudulent Misrepresentation
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
Undocumented Trusts – No Requirement for Formal Trust Agreements
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
Are my Trademark Rights being Breached? Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Lawyers
In Subway IP LLC v. Budway, Cannabis & Wellness Store, 2021 FC 583, the Federal Court of Canada (“FC”) found that the respondents infringed on the applicant’s registered trademark contrary to section 20 of the Trademarks Act. The FC found that the use of the “BUDWAY” trademark amounted to the tort of passing off and depreciation of goodwill in the appellant’s trademark. As a result, the court granted the applicant, Subway, damages in the amount of $15,000 and an injunction against the respondents prohibiting them, among other things, from dealing in goods or services in association with the trademark or trade name “BUDWAY”. What is Considered a Breach of Trademark Rights? In the FC’s reasons for its decision, it advised generally that: A trademark registration grants the owner the exclusive right to use the mark throughout Canada in respect of the goods and services in the registration; The right to … Read More
Ontario Court Affirms “Generous and Liberal Approach” to the Recognition/Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
In the recent decision, M1 Florida Developments Inc. v. Ameristar Development Corporation, 2021 ONSC 6883 (CanLII), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“OSCJ”) granted the plaintiffs default judgment in Ontario for the registration and enforcement of a judgment that the plaintiffs obtained in the United States of America (the “Foreign Judgment”). The OSCJ advised that Canadian courts “have adopted a generous and liberal approach to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments”. Further, the OSCJ opined that the purpose of an action for the recognition of a foreign judgment “is to assist in enforcing an already-adjudicated dispute” and is not “to evaluate or re-litigate the underlying claim”. The OSCJ was satisfied that the foreign court “properly assumed jurisdiction over the dispute” and noted that a Canadian court “will generally recognize and enforce a foreign judgment where the foreign court assumed jurisdiction on the same basis as the domestic court would”. … Read More
Recognition of Foreign Judgments – Supreme Court Leaves Determination of Enforceability of “Ricochet Judgments” for another day – Update on Previous Blog
This is an update on our blog, Recognition of Foreign Judgments – The Ontario Courts will not Recognize Enforcement Orders (a.k.a. “Ricochet Judgments”), regarding the Superior Court decision in H.M.B. Holdings Ltd. v. Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda, 2021 ONSC 2307 (CanLII). That decision has been appealed up to the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”), which has now also rendered its decision. In dismissing the appeal, the SCC agreed with the application judge, and with the Court of Appeal, that Ontario’s Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act (the “Act”) bars the plaintiff (appellant) from registering a default judgment that it obtained in British Columbia to enforce a judgment granted by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The SCC advised that the Act only applies to (1) reciprocating jurisdictions, such as British Columbia, and (2) judgments or orders of a court in a civil proceeding where a sum of money … Read More
Breach of Agreement of Purchase and Sale – What are Your Options?
The Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) in Ching v. Pier 27 Toronto Inc., 2021 ONCA 551 (CanLII), recently outlined the options an innocent party to an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) has upon the other party breaching (i.e. repudiating) the APS. General Principles Repudiation is the refusal of one party to an APS to abide by the terms of the APS. Repudiation by one party does not in itself result in the termination of the APS. Rather, repudiation provides the innocent party (i.e. the non-repudiating party) to the APS with the following choices: Accept the repudiation (i.e. disaffirm the APS); or Treat the APS as subsisting (i.e. affirm the APS). The innocent party generally has a reasonable period of time to choose whether to disaffirm or affirm the APS. However, waiting too long may result in a court determining that the APS has been affirmed. During this reasonable waiting … Read More
Breach of Contract Lawyers – Can Contracts that do not Specify Duration or that Lack a Termination Clause be Terminated Unilaterally?
Ontario’s Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) in Conseil Scolaire Catholique Franco-Nord v. Nipissing, 2021 ONCA 544 opined on how contracts that do not specify a termination date or a procedure for termination ought to be interpreted. The ONCA grappled with the question of whether to treat a contract that was silent on the issue of termination as either (1) a perpetual contract, that does not end, or (2) a contract of indefinite duration, into which the court can imply a provision allowing for unliteral termination upon reasonable notice. Historical Approach The ONCA advised that courts used to presume that contracts which were indefinite in time were perpetual in nature. However, this approach was subsequently disregarded, and courts began to presume a right to terminate an indefinite contract by the provision of reasonable notice. New Approach The ONCA advised that even more recently, however, a contextual, fact-specific, approach has been favoured by … 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
Contract Lawyers – The Duty of Good Faith – Update on Bhasin v Hrynew
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) recently released its decision in Wastech Services Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, 2021 SCC 7 (CanLII) which clarifies the operation of the duty to exercise contractual discretion in good faith described in the seminal case, Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71 (CanLII), [2014] 3 SCR 494. The SCC confirms that where a party exercises a discretionary power under a contract, it must do so in good faith (meaning that parties must exercise their contractual duties honestly, reasonably, and not capriciously or arbitrarily). If a party violates the duty of good faith, the contract is breached. The SCC opined that the following question must be asked when deciding if a party breached the duty of good faith: Was the exercise of contractual discretion unconnected to the purpose for which the contract granted discretion? If the answer is yes, then the party has … 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
China International Arbitration Award Enforced by Ontario Court
Tianjin v. Xu, 2019 ONSC 628 (CanLII) involved an application under the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 2, Sch 5 (the “Act”) for an order recognizing and making enforceable in Ontario an arbitral award of the Chinese International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”). Respondent’s Defences The respondent argued that the arbitration award should not be enforced in Ontario because: Service: The respondent did not receive notice of the arbitral proceeding or the appointment of arbitrators; and Jurisdiction: The Ontario Superior Court of Justice did not have jurisdiction to enforce the arbitral award because the arbitration was not an “international commercial arbitration”. Service The court found that there is no requirement that service of notice of the arbitral proceedings or of appointment of arbitrators be effected in accordance with the CIETAC Rules. Rather, the court opined that the respondent was given “proper notice” of the proceedings and … Read More
- Page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2