Call us: (905) 366 9700
Legal Blog:
Dec
01
2009
Partner
This is a variation on the theme of the previous case. In this situation, the borrower blames someone else for his woes and then states that, consequently, the bank should not be able to claim repayment of the debt. This was the situation in The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Campian, a 2009 Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision.
Continue Reading >Dec
01
2009
Appraisals
A borrower decides to buy a business. He goes to the bank for financing. The bank, before deciding whether to advance funds, wants the assets appraised and either accepts the borrower’s appraisal or arranges its own. The bank lends, the borrower buys, the business does poorly, the borrower cannot repay the loan, and the bank sues. On what basis does the borrower defend? Expect the usual defences, but also expect that the borrower will claim that the appraisal was higher than the actual value of the assets and that, therefore, the bank should not be repaid because the bank somehow is liable for the allegedly incorrect valuation. This was the case in TD Canada Trust v. 2086122 Ontario Inc., a 2009 Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision.
Continue Reading >Dec
01
2009
Performance #2
The courts have been attempting to bypass the Statute of Frauds for years, actually centuries. The requirement that an agreement for the sale of land be in writing to be effective makes sense – except when it does not – which, it seems, is much of the time. The courts of equity devised a concept to ameliorate the harsh results of the Statute: part performance. In that regard, see our newsletter of August 2007. If the parties have acted in reliance on what seems to be an oral agreement, the courts may enforce the agreement. However, to obtain a finding of part performance, what has to be done and who has to do it? That was the subject of Erie Sand & Gravel Ltd. v. Seres’ Farms Ltd. (2009) CarswellOnt 6035 (Ont. C.A.).
Continue Reading >