Call us: (905) 366 9700

Legal Blog:

Apr
01
2004

Costs

Posted in Lawyers' Issues

Occasionally, a case just jumps out at us. Prosperine v. Ottawa-Carleton, a 2004 decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, was such a case.

Continue Reading >
Apr
01
2004

Bulky at SCC

Posted in Lawyers' Issues

In our newsletter of February 2002, we discussed the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in National Trust Co. v. H & R Block Canada Inc. That case stood for the proposition that if a purchaser purchased the assets of a business without first obtaining a satisfactory bulk sales affidavit or a court order, the purchaser was liable to pay the debt owed to the creditors up to the full value of the purchase price. This proposition continued to apply even though, in the particular case, the creditors would have received nothing had the purchaser and vendor gone to court to get approval for the sale.

Continue Reading >
Apr
01
2004

Commission

Posted in Lawyers' Issues

There are times when we review a case and wonder why it was prosecuted or defended. The facts seem clear; the law is completely clear; and one or other of the parties was doomed to lose from the outset. We realise, however, that often the facts were not necessarily clear at the time of trial; they only appear to have been clear after the judge makes the findings of fact.

Continue Reading >
Apr
01
2004

Pillar Update

Posted in Collections

In our newsletter of October 2003, we discussed the case of Pillar Sausages & Delicatessens Ltd v. Cobb, a 2003 decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In that case, a purchaser ordered a machine from a vendor and paid for it in advance. The vendor did not deliver the machine and, after the purchaser’s demand, did not return the money. Using the oppression remedy under the Business Corporations Act, the purchaser not only obtained judgment against the corporate vendor, but against the sole director and officer.

Continue Reading >
Apr
01
2004

Fire

Posted in Collections

Mortgagors carry insurance on the mortgaged property, as all good mortgagors should do. The insurance policy contains the standard mortgage clause and notes the interest of the mortgagee in the policy. The property burns, the mortgagee applies for the insurance proceeds, and the insurer pays. Right? Not necessarily, says the Ontario Court of Appeal in a 2004 decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company.

Continue Reading >
Download our free checklist:

“10 Questions to ask before hiring a law firm”

DOWNLOAD

Speigel Nichols Fox LLP