HUB International provides 3 steps you can take as a contractor. Click here to read: COVID-19 Construction Safety Plan Guidance.
An article by Revay and Associates Limited discusses the impact of COVID-19 on construction projects. Click here to read: Proactive documentation and monitoring of the impacts of COVID-19 on construction projects.Continue Reading >
On March 20, 2020, Susanne Balpataky, a partner at SNF and the Chair of the Mississauga Board of Trade, spoke on Sauga 960 AM with David Wojcik, the President of the Mississauga Board of Trade, about COVID-19 and the workplace.
Susanne, who practices employment law, discussed how the pandemic is affecting business owners and answered some of the legal questions with which many employers are now grappling.
If you are an employer or an employee who might need some direction during the COVID-19 crisis, please contact Susanne at: email@example.comContinue Reading >
Piekut v. Romoli 2020 Ont CA
An application for a declaration that a will or codicil or, indeed, any other document is invalid is not subject to the Limitations Act if no consequential relief is sought in the proceedings [section 16(1)(a)].Continue Reading >
Kim Ferreira, partner and commercial litigator, was re-elected to the Board of Directors for the Peel Law Association (“PLA”) for a second consecutive year on February 27, 2020. We are excited that Kim will be able to continue to advocate on behalf of PLA members, enhance the practice of law and promote diversity.
If you wish to contact Kim about any PLA-related matters, please e-mail him at: firstname.lastname@example.orgContinue Reading >
In January 2020, Susanne Balpataky, a partner at SNF, became the new Chair of the Mississauga Board of Trade (“MBOT”). We are very proud of Susanne who is not only an experienced commercial litigator and employment lawyer, but also a community leader interested in growing Mississauga’s business sector. She is an advocate for businesses and individuals.
At SNF, we like to refer to Susanne as Madame Chair. Congratulations, Madame Chair.
If you have any innovative ideas about MBOT, please share them with Susanne by e-mailing her at: email@example.com
Continue Reading >
Cynical people claim that the purpose of insurance companies is not to pay claims, but to receive premiums. However, insurance companies and sureties have a duty to their shareholders to ensure that the claims that they pay are valid. Sureties have an additional constituency when making a decision to pay: the parties indemnifying those obligations (i.e. the contactor that was the principal under the bond and, almost inevitably, its individual guarantors). Accordingly, when the surety in Lopes Limited v. Guarantee Company of North America, a 2019 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, thought that sub’s claim against a labour and material payment bond would result in the sub being overcompensated, it fought that claim.
The sub had a subcontract to fabricate, supply, and install HVAC, plumbing, and controls systems for the project.
Continue Reading >
Deco Homes (Richmond Hill) Inc. v Mao 2019 Ont SCJ
Agreement of purchase and sale for a new house contained a Tarion Addendum. One section noted that disputes relating to the termination of the agreement under section 11 were to be submitted to arbitration. Section 11 seems to indicate that it did not apply to a breach of contract by the purchaser. The judge stayed the action in favour of arbitration because, in addition to the developer’s cause of action relating to breach of contract, the purchaser had alleged matters that came within section 11.Continue Reading >
Ampscon Inc. v. Melloul- Blamey Construction Inc. 2018 Ont SCJ (MC)
In determining whether to set aside the registrar’s dismissal of an action after a five-year delay, the Master discounted four of those years because the defendant had done nothing itself to push the matter along. He criticised the defendant for “lying in the weeds.”Continue Reading >
Thistle v. Schumilas 2020 Ont CA
The plaintiff voluntarily assigned into bankruptcy. Between the date of that assignment and the date of his discharge, the plaintiff had a cause of action against an insurance broker for negligent advice relating to a life insurance policy. The plaintiff did not know of his cause of action against the insurance broker until after he had been discharged. The court noted that all of his property became vested in his trustee in bankruptcy, including any causes of action that he may have had. Further, upon his discharge, any property remained with the trustee until the plaintiff moved to have the trustee re-transfer any unrealised property to him. The plaintiff claimed that, because his limitation period did not start until his discovery of the cause of action, he should be allowed to continue his action against the broker as if he had obtained an order granting him standing during the bankruptcy. The court refused to do so; an order could not be granted nunc pro tunc (i.e. retroactively) if a limitation period had already expired, which was the situation in this case even considering the discovery principle.Continue Reading >
Smoljan (Bankruptcy Trustee of) v. Musiala 2019 Ont SCJ
Defendant brought a motion for security for costs. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had no right to do so without leave under Rule 48.04 because the defendant had consented to the plaintiff setting “the matter down for trial.” The judge held that leave was unnecessary because Rule 48.04 refers to a written consent under Rule 48.06(1). That Rule refers to the consent that would be given to reduce the 60-day time period before a matter is placed on a trial list after it has been set down for trial. The purpose of that consent is to abridge the time requirement and parties should not be permitted to undo that time savings by bringing further motions.Continue Reading >