Court pierces corporate veil on alter ego theory of liability
In Chan v. City Commercial Realty Group Ltd., the court “pierced the corporate veil” to hold the principals of a real estate brokerage personally liable for the debts of their corporation. The corporate defendant, City Commercial Realty Services (Canada) Ltd. (“City 1”), had initially sued the plaintiffs in respect of a real estate transaction, which was dismissed at trial. City 1 further appealed and lost. Costs awards were ordered against City 1, which went unsatisfied. Shortly before the appeal was heard, a new real estate brokerage – City Commercial Realty Group Ltd. (“City 2”) – was established to continue the ... [more] Full article
A Whale of a Fight!
A recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court pits Marineland against Seaworld in a battle of contractual interpretation and the application of foreign law for possession of Ikaika, a killer whale. Ikaika was born in Orlando, Florida in 2002, but since 2006 has been residing in the Marineland facilities in Niagara Falls, Ontario, subject to a Breeding Loan Agreement. In December 2010, Seaworld gave written notice that they wanted their whale back. Marineland refused, so Seaworld launched an application seeking immediate possession. [more] Full article
Bank cannot take advantage of mistake, court rules
Court clarifies doctrines of unilateral and mutual mistake
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently clarified the difference between mutual and unilateral contractual mistake in the case of Royal Bank of Canada v. El-Bris Limited. Laskin J.A., writing for the court, explained that the four prerequisites set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Performance Industries Ltd. v. Sylvan Lake Golf & Tennis Club only apply to cases of unilateral, not mutual, contractual mistake. [more] Full article
Employment agency liable for not checking references
Earlier this year, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed a trial decision awarding damages against an employment placement agency for not checking the references of an employee who would later go on to defraud her employer of more than $263,000. [more] Full article