Lara Khoury, a lecturer at the Faculty of Law, McGill University, observed that “…the accounting profession has evolved greatly. Modern accountants, once only bookkeepers, have gradually been attributed a large range of responsibilities. They now not only prepare, investigate, and audit accounts, but also perform important advisory, reporting, investigatory, regulatory, and administrative functions. This new diversity in their functions exposes them to a greater risk of liability towards a larger range of people”.
The expense of litigation is a top concern for all clients. So, if you are involved in a lawsuit and want to try to ensure that you have the best shot at recovering your expenses when successful, what should you do? One key option is to make a Rule 49 offer to settle. The timing of an offer to settle is important and can have a significant impact down the road. Now you might ask why anyone would offer to settle a fight when it’s either just getting started or getting really close to the trial that you’ve spent so long preparing for. The answer is a simple one: protecting your ability to maximize the return of your legal costs.
Lawsuits against real estate agents may be based on a number of different claims. Such claims may include allegations of misrepresentation, negligence, lack of disclosure, secret profits, conflict of interest, etc. As such, it’s important for both the real estate agent and the client to understand what the law expects of real estate agents.
Whether you are buying your first home or papering a multimillion-dollar corporate deal, chances are you will see an “entire agreement” clause somewhere toward the end of your contract. Sometimes known as an integration clause, an entire agreement clause confirms that there are no other terms, conditions, warranties or collateral agreements to the agreement, whether express or implied, except for those expressly set out in the document to be signed. The reason for these types of clauses is obvious – you don’t want the other side taking the position that some previous draft or letter or e-mail formed part of your written contract, then suing you for breach or negligent misrepresentation.
People often err when looking at the amount of damages a court will award for wrongful dismissal. They sometimes presume that the maximum damage awards are set in stone. As the case we review below will demonstrate, there are times that the courts are so troubled by the conduct of employers that new records are set in damage awards. So let’s talk about the firing of a Rabbi by a synagogue.
So I pose the question – is there a litigation risk to a lender who signs a Heter Iska? When a religious Jew lends another Jew money they often enter into an agreement called a Heter Iska. Faced with the biblical prohibition against charging interest on loans and the reality that lenders are more likely to lend people money when interest can be charged, the rabbis created a halachic mechanism to still allow a lender to profit from the loan and not charge interest. This halachic document is called the Heter Iska. The Heter Iska characterizes the lender as an investor who provides capital for a business venture.
In the words of the Court of Appeal at paragraph 34, "those funds should be the subject of a constructive trust in favour of DSLC Capital Corp. in order to prevent the unjust enrichment of Credifinance Securities Limited." But, this is the end of the story. Let’s start at the beginning. DSLC Capital Corp. (DSLC) sought to invest in Credifinance Securities Limited (Credifinance) thinking that it was a member in good standing with the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC). DSLC’s plan was to become a part owner of Credifinance so that DSLC could sell securities and other investments to its existing network of investors. Based on representations of the principal of Credifinance, DSLC loaned Credifinance $400,000 and, by share subscription agreement, proceeded to purchase a minority ownership interest in Credifinance.
Marsha met Marc only 3 months ago. When she agreed to marry him she thought he was a wealthy entrepreneur. Instead, she found out that Marc only owned a small store and was barely making ends meet. When Marsha discovered her mistake she immediately started to date other men. After Marsha agreed to marry him, Marc gave her a $20,000 diamond engagement ring. Soon after Marc caught Marsha on a date with another man. He demanded that she give back the engagement ring. She refused. In her mind the engagement ring was a gift. Marc sued. Who do you think should get the ring? Let's see what the courts say.
Why do people incorporate companies? One of the main reasons is that generally, if a company does business, no employee or officer of the corporation is personally liable for any act within the scope of their duties on behalf of the corporation. Now, there are some exceptions to that general rule that could result in personal liability, even if the business is incorporated.