In Brown v. Belleville (City), 2013 ONCA 148 (Ont. C.A.), the Court of Appeal for Ontario has signalled that the common law doctrine of privity of contract, while not yet pronounced dead, struggles on life support. (more…)
Archive for the ‘commercial litigation’ Category
Privity of Contract: Not Yet Dead, But On Life Support
March 14, 2013Court of Appeal for Ontario finds restrictive covenants a bit too tight
February 5, 2013
Today’s decision of the Court of Appeal in Ontario in Martin v. ConCreate USL Limited Partnership, 2013 ONCA 72 (“ConCreate”) confirms that restrictive covenants in commercial agreements without a fixed term are unenforceable.
The tl;dr version: Restrictive covenants of indefinite duration and subject to consent of indeterminate third parties are unenforceable. (more…)
Regional Senior Justice Edward Then: Case Management Masters will begin to hear bankruptcy matters in Toronto
February 3, 2012Via the Section Executives of Civil Litigation and Insolvency for the Ontario Bar Association:
My New Article in the Canadian International Lawyer
October 21, 2011I have published a new article in the latest issue of the Canadian Bar Association’s Canadian International Lawyer journal entitled, “Adjudicating International Human Rights Claims in Canada”, (2011), 8(3) Cdn. Int. Lawyer 117-133. Here is the abstract:
This article addresses the issue of the privatization of justice and whether a social contract model is appropriate in disputes affecting the public interest, if one accepts the premise that international human rights claims fall under the rubric of “public order” or public interest. The article then explores the implications of promoting a social contract model for advancing and adjudicating international human rights claims in Canada against corporate and state actors, both from the perspective of litigation and arbitration. It concludes with an overview of recent federal legislative reforms relating to state-sponsored terrorism and international human rights standards.
A pdf copy of the article is available for download here.
Director’s Claim for Contribution and Indemnity for GST and payroll remittances rejected
May 17, 2011
Image via Wikipedia
Today’s decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Adams v. Anderson, 2011 ONCA 381 deals with a director’s claim for contribution and indemnity and unjust enrichment against alleged fellow directors relating to the appellant’s payment of the company’s outstanding GST and payroll remittances. The appellant claimed under the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15 (GST) and the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (payroll remittances), both of which provide that a director who pays the GST or payroll remittances may claim contribution from the other directors who are liable for the claims. In the alternative, the appellant claimed that the respondents were unjustly enriched by the payments he made.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, substituting the trial judge’s analysis with its own following Danso-Coffey v. Ontario, 2010 ONCA 171. which held that an application judge erred by purporting to determine a person’s liability as a director for retail sales tax remittances, rather than applying the Minister’s determination under the comprehensive statutory tax regime. On the issue of admission of fresh evidence, the following is particularly germane:
[9] We do not admit the fresh evidence for several reasons. First, it is not supported by an affidavit. Second, as Laing’s counsel advises, the letter was a result of representations made to the CRA after the hearing of the appeal. The hearing of an appeal should be the final step in the final determination of all issues. Parties should not expect the opportunity to buttress their positions based on how the court responded to the arguments advanced at the hearing of the appeal. Here, it was known that the appellant would rely on this court’s decision in Danso-Coffey; Laing had ample opportunity to obtain the letter prior to the hearing of the appeal. Third, and most importantly, the March 31, 2011 letter is not a reassessment and cannot be expected to affect the result. It adds little to the October 1, 2008 letter already in the record.
Antonin I. Pribetic
