3 total
The court granted an application to recognize and enforce a US $1.202 billion international arbitration award against Venezuela.
Crystallex International Corporation applied for the recognition and enforcement of a US $1.202 billion international arbitration award against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
The award stemmed from Venezuela's expropriation of Crystallex's investment in a gold mining project, in breach of a bilateral investment treaty.
The court found that service on Venezuela was properly effected under the State Immunity Act and that Crystallex satisfied the requirements of Article 35 of the UNCITRAL Model Law for recognition and enforcement.
No grounds for refusal under Article 36 were raised or found, as the dispute was arbitrable and enforcement consistent with Ontario public policy.
The court granted the order for recognition and enforcement, including pre and post-award interest, and awarded costs to Crystallex.
Prepayment option unavailable where mortgage had already matured and become due and payable.
The appellant purchased commercial land from the respondent and granted a Vendor Take Back Mortgage.
The mortgage contained a provision making it due and payable five days after the appellant obtained a shoring and excavation permit, and another provision allowing for prepayment on specific dates.
The permit was issued on January 10, making the mortgage due on January 15.
The appellant attempted to exercise the prepayment option on January 15.
The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that because the mortgage had matured and become due and payable on January 15, it could not be prepaid on that date.
Statutory condominium voting rights cannot be cut down by private agreement or estoppel.
Appeal from an application judgment reducing the voting rights attached to 18 commercial condominium basement units from 18 votes to three.
The court held that condominiums are creatures of statute and that the voting scheme mandated by the Condominium Act could not be altered by unilateral undertakings, by-laws inconsistent with the declaration, settlement arrangements, or equitable doctrines absent compliance with the statutory amendment process.
The court further held that proprietary estoppel was unavailable because there was no inducement, reliance, or detriment as between the relevant parties, and any prior representation was not made to the respondent owner nor binding on successors in title.
The appeal was allowed, the judgment below was set aside, and the application was dismissed with costs to the appellant here and below.
