Call us: (905) 366 9700
Legal Blog:
Apr
01
2007
More Paper
In our last newsletter, we discussed the case of Liorti v. Menzies [2005] O.J. No. 5564. In that case, you may recall, mother’s mortgage was secondary collateral to son’s primary mortgage and the lawyers dealt only with son. We reported that the essence of the decision of the trial judge was, “son and mother were clients and since mother was liable for the full loan, the lawyers owed a duty to obtain her instructions; they did not do so and, accordingly, the payment of the proceeds was a breach of trust.”
Continue Reading >Apr
01
2007
Demand Note
You may place Hare v. Hare [2006] O.J. Np. 4955 (C.A.), a 2006 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, in the Reuben Rosenblatt category of “cases that scare me.”
Continue Reading >Apr
01
2007
Credit Cards
We all know that if the balance owing from use of a credit card is not fully paid, the financial institution charges interest from the date that the owner uses the card to purchase goods and services from a merchant (i.e. the “transaction date”). The date that the financial institution actually credits the merchant, which may be 2-5 days later, is ignored in the interest calculation. Should this be? By way of class action, a credit cardholder challenged this in Dahl v. Royal Bank of Canada; in 2006, the British Columbia Court of Appeal decided the matter.
Continue Reading >Apr
01
2007
Land Fraud #2
The Ontario Court of Appeal has now decided the case of Lawrence v. Wright. The facts were simple: fraudster#1 sold a property to fraudster#2. At the time of the closing, fraudster#2 mortgaged the property to Maple Trust and paid out an existing first mortgage. The original owner discovered the fraud two months later. The trial judge held that Maple Trust had priority over the original owner; the original owner appealed.
Continue Reading >