Courts may order a plaintiff to pay money into court in certain prescribed situations as security for the defendant’s anticipated costs of the litigation. This is available to a defendant in circumstances where there is a likelihood that a defendant will have difficulty recovering costs from a plaintiff at the end of the litigation if the plaintiff loses and is ordered to pay costs to the defendant.
The wild swings in cryptocurrencies have created ripple effects in the world’s economy. This new type of currency has grown in value and popularity, in part, by the increased adoption by retail and institutional investors alike. There is little doubt that litigation will follow. One recent case is Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Costodian Inc. et al. Justice Hainey’s decision is quite interesting, because it provides a concise summary of how the respondent cryptocurrency exchange functioned and how complicated the process really is.
In Elias Restaurant v. Keele Sheppard Plaza Inc., 2020 ONSC 5457, a Toronto landlord and property manager terminated a commercial lease and sought to evict the owners of a Caribbean restaurant from their shopping plaza. Although the jurisprudence is rife with these types of commercial tenancy disputes, this one is of particular note.
The recent decision of C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger, 2020 SCC 45, by the Supreme Court of Canada, has expanded the duty of good faith in the performance of contracts, by broadening the types of conduct that can lead to a finding of a breach of that duty.
The way in which legal research is conducted has evolved significantly in the past few decades with the advent of vast online directories such as Westlaw, LexisNexis, and CanLII. However, the process remains time-consuming, costly, and demanding, given the increasing complexity of the law and volume of information that must be gathered and synthesized. To address these challenges, new legal software products have been developed which apply artificial intelligence and machine learning to the process of legal research.
This blog focuses on the significant impacts that commercial landlords and tenants are facing and explores the difficult considerations that the court may have to make in determining how to allocate losses that both commercial landlords and tenants are inevitably experiencing during this time.
Given the unprecedented disruption wrought by COVID-19 in Ontario and around the world, both employers and employees may be asking themselves the following questions: 1. what is the difference between a layoff and being dismissed?; 2. does an employer have a statutory or common law right to lay off an employee absent a contractual provision explicitly or implicitly permitting layoffs to take place?; and 3. can an employee claim that a “layoff” is really wrongful dismissal and seek damages?
This blog is intended to provide a brief overview of force majeure clauses and the equitable principle of frustration of contract and their potential applicability to the COVID-19 pandemic.
One of the most fundamental principles of Canadian corporate law is that a corporation has a legal personality distinct from its shareholders. At common law, shareholders were precluded from bringing their own action in respect of a wrong done to the corporation. Even majority or controlling shareholders had no personal cause of action for a wrong done to the corporation.
Courts are generally loath to permit “execution before judgment”. The simple reason is that a plaintiff has not yet proven their case against the defendant. Tying up a defendant’s assets pending a trial that may be a couple years away may cause an inequitable result if the defendant is ultimately successful in showing that a plaintiff’s claim is unmeritorious. The freezing order could also make the defendant unable to defend itself or result in a “forced” settlement on terms that the defendant would not have otherwise agreed to.