Source: http://litigate.com/commercial-litigation/blog
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 07:58:27+00:00

Document:
A five-judge panel of the Court of Appeal for Ontario has upset the long-standing conventional wisdom among bankruptcy and insolvency practitioners in Ontario about the fate of provincially-created statutory trusts in bankruptcy.
How can an innocent victim recover their losses when a fraudster uses multiple corporations as part of a complex “shell game” to hide and co-mingle misappropriated funds? In DBDC Spadina v Walton, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered a complex multi-real estate transaction investment fraud, perpetrated over an extended period of time with the involvement of numerous corporate actors – all under the control of the fraudster.
Like most jurisdictions, Ontario requires parties contemplating litigation to bring an action within a certain period of time. Pursuant to the Limitations Act, 2002, the standard limitation period applicable to most causes of action in Ontario is two years, after which a plaintiff will not be able to maintain the action.Like most jurisdictions, Ontario requires parties contemplating litigation to bring an action within a certain period of time. Pursuant to the Limitations Act, 2002, the standard limitation period applicable to most causes of action in Ontario is two years, after which a plaintiff will not be able to maintain the action.
Entire agreement clauses are often used to insulate contracting parties from disputes over pre-contractual representations. The recent decision of Curtis Chandler v Karl Hollett demonstrates how bare allegations of pre-contractual misrepresentation will rarely win out over such clauses.
A recent decision of the Ontario Divisional Court upheld a contractually agreed-upon limitation period and enforced it against a third party, even in circumstances where it appeared to be at odds with the statutory provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002.
Sometimes small disputes about technical matters unearth deeper truths about how the law works. This happened in a decision released on January 27, 2017 by the Supreme Court of Canada. Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co on its face concerned a narrow issue of interpretation defining amounts payable under automobile insurance policies. In resolving this issue, the Court bumped into a much more general issue concerning whether and how jurisprudence influences the meaning of words used in private contracts.
The hardest mistake to fix in litigation may be missing the limitation period. Almost every other mistake can be fixed, but missing that critical window for bringing a claim can be catastrophic.
Kierkegaard famously observed that life can only be understood backwards. Many a commercial lawyer finds this easy to understand. It is a reality of modern commercial life that increasingly complex and sophisticated transactions can have implications that are not understood or anticipated when they are executed, but only become clear later, and in hindsight. This may especially be the case where complex transactions need to be executed quickly and in real time.
All professionals deal with difficult clients from time to time. Difficult clients are often characterized by an aversion to receiving negative opinions and a refusal to heed the counsel of the professionals they have retained. A natural temptation when dealing with such clients might be to stop giving negative opinions to them and to instead focus on simply completing the tasks which the client has instructed. However, as the recent decision in Western Troy Capital Resources Inc v Genivar Inc demonstrates, in order for professional firms to avoid potential liability, they must ensure that they state their negative opinions clearly to their clients, especially in circumstances where a professional believes that the work which they are being retained to complete is futile.
Appealing Commercial Decisions: Where To?
Businesses need to be able to resolve disputes quickly and effectively. For that reason, the Ontario Business Corporations Act (the “OBCA”) provides that any appeal of an order made under the OBCA lies to the Divisional Court (a special branch of the Superior Court of Justice), instead of the Court of Appeal. In theory, appeals to the Divisional Court are resolved more quickly than appeals to the Court of Appeal.
Brevity is not always a virtue, especially when a trial judge’s decision leaves the palate of an appellate court dry. The line between insufficient reasons and succinctness was explored most recently in Dovbush v. Mouzitchka.
The Supreme Court of Canada has released its highly anticipated decision in Chevron Corp. v. Yaiguage, 2015 SCC 42.
In a recent decision, the Ontario Superior Court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale which constituted 75% of the costs actually incurred by the successful party. The decision demonstrates the possibility of a generous costs award on a partial indemnity scale where the issues at stake are important and complex, and both written materials and oral submissions are of high calibre.
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in P.A.R.C.E.L. Inc. v. Acquaviva, 2015 ONCA 331 that section 8 of the Interest Act may apply to a promissory note even where it is not directly secured by a mortgage.
Lo Faso brings up the tension between fair and just court process and ensuring that all facts are available to adjudicate a dispute.
The Liquor Control Board of Ontario has lost a protracted dispute with the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) over its right to collect the personal information of wine club members in the recent case of Liquor Control Board of Ontario v. Vin De Garde Wine Club, 2015 ONSC 2537.
In summer 2013, Bell announced the November launch of its Relevant Ads Program (RAP). RAP involved the use of Bell customer personal information for the purpose of delivering targeted ads to Bell customers. Bell would charge a fee to advertisers engaged in the program.
Whose law governs contractual disputes when the parties are in different jurisdictions and the contract itself is silent on the matter?
It is commonly accepted that the evidence of expert witnesses must be impartial and that they owe a duty to the court to give fair, objective and non-partisan opinion evidence.
A fundamental purpose of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (the "Act") is the financial rehabilitation of the "honest but unfortunate" debtor. One way that this purpose is achieved is through the automatic stay of proceedings granted under section 69(1)(a) of the Act.
The recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court in Versa Fittings v. Berkley Insurance Co. (2015 ONSC 1756) reinforces that a Rule 21 motion is an expedient way to secure a ruling on whether an insurers duty to defend has been triggered.
Bankruptcy provides debtors with a fresh start. A clean slate, free from previous financial obligations. The general rule is that all previous debts are extinguished, subject to a very narrow band of exceptions, where the onus is on the creditor to establish the survival of the debt obligation post-bankruptcy.
The Ontario Divisional Court has recently affirmed the importance of access to justice as a factor in determining whether to certify a proposed class action.
At trial, the Judge held that the plaintiff and the defendant real estate agents should share the 10% commission on the sale of a plaza and gas station.
An ongoing insolvency proceeding under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act can now be added to the short list of circumstances in which a court will decline to follow a forum selection clause in a commercial contract.
In Salasel v. Cuthbertson (2015 ONCA 115), the Court of Appeal provided welcome clarification on the doctrine of absolute privilege, in a decision that revisited the case of Hassan Rasouli.
On an appeal from a Rule 21 motion, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Personal Health Information Protection Act, S.O. 2004, c. 3, Sch. A (PHIPA) does not create an exhaustive code precluding a civil action for intrusion upon seclusion.
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruled late in January that the Nova Scotia Barristers Society ("NSBS") must accredit law degrees granted by Trinity Western University ("TWU") in Langley, British Columbia.
The Sino-Forest class action has been certified, and leave was granted to bring a claim under the Securities Act for secondary market misrepresentations.
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently had a chance to consider the law regarding exclusion clauses in the lease context.
On an appeal from an arbitration under the Condominium Act, in 90 George Street Ltd. v. Ottawa Carleton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 815, 2015 ONSC 336, Justice Patrick Smith applied a correctness standard of review.
The Court of Appeal recently released a decision that serves as a reminder to all counsel: never lose sight of who you act for.
A lie by any other name?
In what circumstances is a failure to disclose a breach of the duty of honesty?
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has reinforced the principle that a persons privileged communications with his or her lawyer should be strictly protected, except in narrow circumstances.
When are costs awarded for travel disbursements for out-of-town lawyers?
Its trite law that an unsuccessful litigant generally pays the successful partys costs. But what happens when the winner hired lawyers from out-of-town who had to travel regularly for the case?
Canadian Courts have been faced in recent years with a number of class actions in which employees allege that their employer improperly misclassified them as ineligible for overtime pay. The Ontario Court of Appeal's recent decision in Brown v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce makes it more difficult for such claims to proceed as class actions.
The British Columbia Supreme Court's decision in Low v. Pfizer Canada Inc., 2014 BCSC 1469 could radically change the legal landscape for patent law in Canada. Patent law has thus far been entirely statutory rather than a product of the common law; courts had not recognized any common law rights or remedies in relation to patents. The decision of Justice Smith changes that, and in so doing changes the risks innovators must consider.
The Supreme Court of Canadas decision in Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 (Sattva) appeared to herald a new era of deference to arbitrators: on at least ordinary questions of law, courts are now to review arbitration awards on a reasonableness standard.
Avoiding a written contract is no assurance that parties can maintain maximum flexibility in their dealings. In S & J Gareri Trucking v. Onyx Corporation, 2014 ONSC 476, Onyx was successful in a tender with the City of Mississauga (the City) to provide five years of snow removal services. In so doing, Onyx indicated that it would allocate 19 trucks to providing services under the contract.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.