Corporate/Commercial Law - OCA

An insurance broker unilaterally issued certificates of insurance renewing coverage for its clients after receiving no response from the insurer regarding renewal.

The broker collected premiums but subsequently placed the coverage with another insurer and forwarded the premiums to the new insurer.

The original insurer, having extended coverage for 30 days, counterclaimed for the premiums for that period.

The Court of Appeal held that the broker's ostensible authority created binding contracts of insurance on behalf of the insurer, and under s. 402 of the Insurance Act, the broker held the collected premiums in trust for the original insurer.

The appeal was allowed and the insurer's counterclaim for premiums was granted.

The appellants and respondents acted as co-listing agents for a property and signed an agreement stating that 'any clients from open houses will be shared'.

A client met at an open house later purchased two other properties through the appellants, generating approximately $325,000 in commissions.

The respondents sued for half the commissions and succeeded at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the clause unambiguously required the agents to share clients introduced through the open house, which implicitly included sharing the resulting commissions.

The appellant commenced an application for oppression relief under the Canada Business Corporations Act, supported by an affidavit from an individual who lacked direct knowledge and was unavailable for cross-examination.

When the appellant attempted to substitute the affidavit after the respondents had filed their responding materials, the motions judge struck the application as an abuse of process, with leave to re-introduce it upon payment of costs thrown away.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge was entitled to infer prejudice and properly exercised his discretion.

The appellant, a real estate broker, created a website that provided the public with direct access to the Toronto Real Estate Board's (TREB) MLS Database.

TREB suspended the appellant's access without notice, arguing he breached the Authorized User Agreement (AUA).

The trial judge found the appellant breached the AUA by not confining his use of the database to exclusive and internal use, and that TREB was justified in suspending access without notice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's interpretation of the AUA and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision that Ontario lacked jurisdiction over a contract dispute with a British Columbia respondent.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in fact by concluding the contracts were made in British Columbia.

Instead, the appellant had made counter-offers that were accepted by the respondent's delivery of goods in Ontario.

Consequently, the contracts were made in Ontario, triggering the presumption of a real and substantial connection under Rule 17.02(f).

The Court also found Ontario to be the convenient forum and allowed the appeal.

The appellant, a user of the drug Paxil, brought a proposed class action against the respondent pharmaceutical companies alleging abuse of process, conspiracy, and waiver of tort.

The appellant claimed the respondents misused the Notice of Compliance proceedings under the Patent Act to delay the entry of a cheaper generic equivalent into the market, forcing consumers to pay supra-competitive prices.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim, finding it disclosed no viable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, concluding that the appellant was not a party to the legal process initiated by the respondents, the respondents' predominant purpose was to advance their own economic interests rather than injure the appellant, and there was no predicate wrongdoing to support a waiver of tort claim.

The respondent brought a motion to remove the appellants' counsel of choice on appeal.

The counsel had briefly met with and advised the respondent on the same dispute 11 years prior, before litigation commenced.

Although the counsel had no recollection of the meeting and argued there was no risk of misusing confidential information, the Court of Appeal granted the motion.

The court held that a lawyer owes a broader duty of loyalty to a former client, beyond just confidentiality, which precludes acting against that former client in the same matter to preserve public confidence in the administration of justice.

The appellant, a fugitive from justice convicted of securities offences in absentia, appealed orders refusing to set aside a noting in default and granting default judgment against her for over $770,000.

The respondents had sued for breach of contract and fraud related to unfulfilled share agreements.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's refusal to set aside the noting in default, finding the appellant's delay was tactical and her explanation for failing to defend lacked credibility.

The court also upheld the default judgment, finding no material inconsistencies in the evidence, but reduced the prejudgment interest rate on concession.

The appellant tenant appealed the dismissal of its action on a motion for summary judgment regarding a commercial lease termination.

The tenant argued the landlord was not entitled to terminate the lease, failed to provide proper notice of default, and that a post-termination agreement was unconscionable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the security deposit was deficient, the notice of default was sufficient under the Commercial Tenancies Act, and the post-termination agreement was not unconscionable as there was no inequality of bargaining power or unfairness.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision finding that it had unreasonably withheld consent to the assignment of a commercial lease.

The application judge found as a fact that the landlord's sole interest in refusing consent was to secure a higher rent because the current rent was below market value.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that this finding of fact was open to the application judge, though it noted that a demand for a rent increase is not always an unreasonable response to an assignment request.

The appellant bank issued letters of credit to secure payment for shrimp supplied by the respondent to the bank's customer.

The letters of credit required delivery receipts as a precondition to payment.

The bank's customer failed to provide the receipts, and the bank used the proceeds from the sale of the shrimp to pay down the customer's line of credit instead of paying the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the bank was disentitled from relying on the defence of strict documentary compliance because it colluded with its customer to defeat the purpose of the letters of credit and breached its implied duty of good faith.

The appellant seized collateral from a third party who had purchased it from the debtor, arguing its security interest attached upon possession under s. 11(2)(b) of the Personal Property Security Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the seizure did not constitute possession sufficient for attachment under s. 11(1) to defeat the third party's interests, as the appellant did not have a signed security agreement prior to the seizure.

The appellant guarantor appealed a summary judgment enforcing a demand guarantee in favour of the respondent bank.

The appellant argued the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, asserting the limitation period began either when the principal debtor defaulted or when the bank sent an initial courtesy letter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a demand guarantee requires a clear and unequivocal demand before it is enforceable, and the limitation period does not commence until such demand is made.

The court found the bank's initial letter was not a demand, and the action was commenced within the two-year limitation period following the actual demand.

The appellant landlord and its related corporate tenant appealed an order granting the respondent franchisor specific performance of an option to lease agreement.

The application judge found that the landlord and tenant acted in concert to frustrate the franchisor's attempt to enforce the option after the tenant terminated its franchise agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings that the parties acted in concert, that the option agreement's true intent did not require the application of contra proferentem, and that the commercial premises possessed the requisite uniqueness to justify specific performance.

The respondent brought an oppression application alleging that the appellants engaged in self-dealing by causing a corporation to fund outside companies owned by them.

The appellants moved to stay the application in favour of arbitration, relying on an arbitration clause in a shareholders' agreement.

The motion judge dismissed the stay motion, finding the oppression claim did not rely on the shareholders' agreement and the alleged conduct related to the appellants' capacities as officers and directors, not shareholders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding damages for trespass to land and chattels, and aggravated damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the $35,000 award for trespass to chattels and the $5,000 award for trespass to land, finding sufficient evidence of actual damage.

However, the court set aside the $10,000 aggravated damages award to the individual plaintiff, as the trespass was committed against the corporate plaintiff.

The appeal was allowed in part, reducing total damages to $40,000.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for wrongful dismissal and negligent misrepresentation regarding the value of shares he would acquire upon employment.

The defendants sought to stay the action, arguing the dispute should be referred to arbitration pursuant to a shareholders' agreement and the International Commercial Arbitration Act.

The application judge refused the stay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the dispute was not 'commercial' in nature and did not arise out of a 'transaction' as defined in the shareholders' agreement, thus falling outside the scope of the arbitration clause.

The appellant, a Canadian pig producer, appealed an order dismissing its motion for an anti-suit injunction and granting a stay of its Ontario action against a Russian corporation.

The appellant sought to avoid an arbitration clause requiring arbitration in Moscow, alleging the respondent's CEO made death threats against its chief operating officer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the injunction issues moot as the arbitration had already occurred.

The court upheld the stay of the Ontario action, concluding the arbitration clause was broad enough to encompass the appellant's related tort claims.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it breached a Master Area Franchise Agreement by wrongfully terminating it.

The trial judge found the termination was based on a misconception of the respondent's payment obligations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the liability finding but corrected mathematical errors in the damages calculation, adjusting the award to $1,141,400.

The appellants appealed a decision declaring that their commercial lease expired and ordering vacant possession.

The appellants argued that they had entered into a binding conditional contract for the extension or renewal of the lease and that the landlords were estoppel from adducing evidence to the contrary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the record amply supported the application judge's conclusion that the parties were merely engaged in negotiations and had not concluded an enforceable agreement to renew or extend the lease.