Call us: (905) 366 9700

Legal Blog:

Oct
01
2019

Veil

Posted in Collections

In our newsletter of June 2014, we discussed the attempt of a creditor of a corporate debtor to “pierce the corporate veil” so that the creditor could obtain judgment against not only the corporation, but its shareholders. We rarely, if ever, see the converse: a creditor of a shareholder debtor attempting to pierce the corporate veil of a corporation to make the corporation liable for the shareholder’s debt. This unusual situation occurred in Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation, a 2018 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

An oil rig with the sun setting in the background.

History

And we do mean history. The plaintiffs, indigenous Ecuadorians whose lands had been polluted by an oil company, Texaco Inc., sought redress in 1993 by way of a class action in a Texas court. Texaco successfully defended on jurisdictional grounds and the plaintiffs ultimately brought their action in Ecuador. This action resulted in an 8-year trial, two appeals, and a $9.5 billion USD judgment against Chevron Corporation, the entity that had merged with Texaco in 2001.

Continue Reading >
Oct
01
2019

Limitations – POA

Posted in Lawyers' Issues

The Limitations Act, 2002 was proclaimed in force as of January 1, 2004. Subject to some other qualifications, the Act has a basic limitation period of two years from discovery and an absolute limitation period of 15 years regardless of discovery. However, not every request for a court order is caught by the Act. This was made apparent in Armitage v. Salvation Army, 2016 ONCA 971.

A stopwatch with the word deadline on it.

POA

The deceased appointed a realtor as his attorney for property as far back as 1990. The deceased died in 2013. In the same year, the realtor submitted her claim for attorney compensation and, within two years of the date of death, issued a notice of application for the passing of accounts, both under her power of attorney and for the estate accounts.

Continue Reading >
Oct
01
2019

Chicken

Posted in Lawyers' Issues

We have a sophisticated tenant and a large and sophisticated landlord. They have a dispute over the terms of the lease and neither blinks. Sort of like playing chicken. This was the situation in McRae Cold Storage Inc. v. Nova Cold Logistics ULC, 2019 ONCA 452.

A chicken.

Lease

The lease was for 5 years with a term ending March 31, 2018. The tenant had an option to extend the term for two additional 5 year terms, which could be exercised only if the tenant were not in default of the lease at the time of extension.

In 2016, the landlord informed the tenant that, under the terms of the lease, the tenant had to pay a portion of the increased energy costs. The amount in issue to the end of the original term was $136,000. The tenant disagreed with the landlord’s interpretation and did not pay those increased costs. The landlord sent a notice of default in November 2017. Notwithstanding this notice of default, the tenant sent a notice exercising its right to extend the term for a further 5 years.

Continue Reading >
Download our free checklist:

“10 Questions to ask before hiring a law firm”

DOWNLOAD

Speigel Nichols Fox LLP