Tag Archives: Ontario Court of Appeal

Ontario Court of Appeal Moves the Needle in Favour of Creditor Rights

Posted on by

Two decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal made in the past year have the potential to significantly diminish the effectiveness of creditor-proofing techniques commonly used by companies and businesspeople. 

FNF Enterprises Inc. v Wag and Train Inc.

The first such case was FNF Enterprises Inc. v Wag and Train Inc.  The company Wag and Train Inc. was the tenant of the landlord FNF Enterprises Inc. pursuant to the commercial lease. 

Before the end of the lease, the sole owner of Wag and Train Inc. engaged in a creditor-proofing technique known as “asset-stripping” or “value-stripping”.  She set up a new corporation and transferred all the assets of Wag and Train Inc. to that new corporation. The new corporation then carried on the same business in another location and abandoned the rented premises before the end of the lease.  The prior corporation (Wag and Train Inc.) thus became a shell corporation with no assets, and FNF Enterprises Inc. had no way of recovering damages from Wag and Train Inc. for breach of the commercial lease.  

The Court of Appeal ruled that the landlord could not pierce the corporate veil and bring a claim against the owner of Wag and Train Inc. in her personal capacity, but could bring an oppression claim against the owner of Wag and Train Inc. in her capacity as a director of the corporation.  The landlord had standing under the Business Corporations Act to bring an oppression claim against the corporate director because, as a creditor of the defendant corporation, it qualified as a “complainant” within the meaning of the Act.

Ontario Securities Commission v Camerlengo Holdings Inc.

The second case was Ontario Securities Commission v Camerlengo Holdings Inc. The defendant Camerlengo Holdings Inc. was owned by Fred Camerlengo.  Back in 1996, when he first set up his company, Fred transferred his house to his wife for nil consideration.  A reasonable assumption to draw from this transaction is that Fred was attempting to put the house out of reach of his and his company’s creditors.  In so doing, Fred was doing only what many similarly-situation businesspeople have done for decades: moving assets into the name of family members to protect them from potential seizure.

It should be noted that Camerlengo Holdings was not in trouble with the Securities Commission: it had borrowed $200,000.00 from an entity called Bluestream—and Bluestream was in trouble with the Securities Commission.  In this lawsuit, which it commenced in 2019, the Securities Commission was trying to recover that $200,000.00 loan from Camerlengo Holdings so that it could seize those funds in partial satisfaction of the moneys that were owed by Bluestream to the Ontario Securities Commission. 

Reversing the motion judge’s decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that a creditor could, under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, attack a prior transfer of assets from a co-owner to his wife, even though the transfer of the property had taken place many years before the creditor became a creditor of that company.  Obviously, when Mr. Camerlengo transferred his house to his wife in 1996 he did not do so to protect his asset from the Ontario Securities Commission, because his company did not owe any money to the Ontario Securities Commission at that time.  Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal held that a subsequent creditor who was not a creditor at the time of the transfer can still attack a transfer under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act if it was made with the intent to “defraud creditors generally, whether present or future”.

It is important to note that in both these cases, the creditor has not yet recovered against the respective defendants: the Court of Appeal simply ruled that FNF enterprises Inc could proceed with a claim under the Business Corporations Act and the Ontario Securities Commission could proceed with a claim under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

These legal precedents mean that, in this future, these commonplace creditor-proofing techniques are likely to be considerably less effective.  While they may delay creditors, they will likely not ultimately defeat motivated and well-resourced creditors.

The Supreme Court of Canada Reiterates the Duty of Good Faith Contractual Performance

Posted on by

If the Supreme Court releases a decision and no one follows it, is it still the law?

Six years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada released a case that was meant to clarify the law of contract.  The case was called Bhasin v Hrynew and, at the time, it was viewed as a bombshell in Canadian law.  Everyone in the legal industry was talking about this landmark case.  And then, something very peculiar happened: just as quickly, everyone stopped talking about.  They went back to carrying on as though this case had never been released.  No one seemed to notice that a case, which everybody agreed was a game-changer when it was released, was not changing any games.

The Supreme Court must have been frustrated that the Bhasin case was not having the impact that was intended.  So frustrated, that they decided to hand down the same judgment a second time, just to drive the point home.  The most recent case released by the Supreme Court is called C. M. Callow Inc. v Zollinger, but it might as well be called Bhasin: Redux.

The similarities between Bhasin and Zollinger are striking and the differences inconsequential.  Both cases involved a small business which had a contract with a larger entity.  In both cases, the larger entity could terminate the contract early by giving written notice (six months’ notice in the Bhasin case, ten days’ notice in the Zollinger case). 

In both cases, the larger entity misled the small business about its intention to terminate the contract.  In both cases, the small business was led to believe that the contract would be continued, and even renewed, when that was not so.  And in both cases, the larger entity terminated the contract by giving the required written notice in accordance with the terms of the contract. 

Bhasin

In Bhasin, the Court set out to resolve an ambiguity in the common law.  They stated for the first time, clearly and unequivocally, that there was, in Canadian law, a duty of good faith contractual performance.  This duty of good faith means that parties to a contract cannot lie or actively mislead each other about matters directly linked to the performance of the contract.  This duty applies whether it is written as a term of the contract or not.  The parties cannot mutually agree that this duty does not apply to their contract.  They held that the larger entity had breached the duty of good faith contractual performance when it misled Mr. Bhasin into thinking his contract would be renewed, when in fact they had already decided to terminate it. 

The Court described this duty as “a general duty of honesty in contractual performance.”  This case made a big splash when it was released, but in the years following, it didn’t really change the way the lower courts decided contract disputes.  It turned into the legal equivalent of the waffle iron you got for your wedding: you were really excited when you got it, and you even talk about it from time to time, but you never really use it. 

Zollinger at the Ontario Court of Appeal

The Zollinger case came up from the Ontario Court of Appeal.  The plaintiff provided maintenance services for a condominium complex.  Just like in Bhasin, the plaintiff’s contract had a term which allowed for early termination on notice. 

The condo complex decided in the Spring that they were not going to renew the contract, but they didn’t tell the plaintiff until September.  At trial, the Superior Court found that they had basically misled the plaintiff about the renewal so that it would do extra work outside the scope of the contract for free over the summer, to try and convince the condo complex to renew the contract. 

The Court of Appeal considered Zollinger in light of Bhasin.  And yet, the Court of Appeal still held that the condo complex’s actions did not constitute a breach of the duty of good faith contractual performance.  They distinguished Zollinger by pointing out that Bhasin dealt with a contract that was set to renew automatically unless cancelled, while the contract in Zollinger did not automatically renew.  By granting leave, and the appeal, the Supreme Court seems to be saying that the similarities between these two cases were far more important than their differences. 

Zollinger at the Supreme Court of Canada

It seems that the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in this case at least in part because they were frustrated with the way that the Ontario Court of Appeal applied the Bhasin precedent.  They took this case to send the message that the lower courts have not been taking the Bhasin precedent seriously enough. 

The Supreme Court’s legal analysis in Zollinger is, in large part, a repetition of the analysis from Bhasin.  The decision is not written as though it is meant to expand the law in the area: more like it is meant to remind the bar and the lower courts of the law.  The Supreme Court concluded that the condo complex had the right to terminate the contract on notice, but that it was not permitted to be dishonest in the way that it exercised that right.  In other words, the exact same conclusion they reached in the Bhasin case.

There is no legal innovation in Zollinger: just a restatement of a previous precedent which, it seems, the Supreme Court would like to see applied more rigorously.  We didn’t see a major change in the jurisprudence after Bhasin – maybe Zollinger will end up having that effect.

Can You Daisy-Chain Your Way Around a Limitation Deadline?

Posted on by

The short answer is “no”.

The long answer is contained in this fascinating case from the Ontario Court of Appeal called H.M.B. Holdings Limited v The Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda.

Background

If you get a civil court judgment against someone in another country, you can (in most cases) have that judgment registered in Canada.  You would want to do this if the party against whom you have a foreign civil judgment owns assets in Canada which you could potentially seize in satisfaction of your judgment. 

If you have a judgment in a country which has a reciprocal enforcement treaty with Canada (such as the United Kingdom), then you can simply apply at the Court office to have the foreign judgment registered as a judgment of the court in Canada.

If the country in which you have your judgment does not have a treaty with Canada, then you have to start a traditional lawsuit in the Canadian court in which you ask the court to grant a judgment recognising and incorporating the foreign judgment.  The deadline to bring this lawsuit is governed by the limitations law of whatever province you are commencing the lawsuit in. 

Ontario, via British Columbia?

H.M.B. Holdings Limited had a judgment from an Antiguan court against the Government of Antigua and Barbuda for millions of dollars.  H.M.B. Holdings must have believed that the Government of Antigua and Barbuda had assets in Ontario, because it wanted to have its Antiguan court judgment recognised in Ontario. 

The problem for H.M.B. Holdings was that the two-year limitation period to commence a lawsuit in Ontario had already expired.  (It had been more than two (2) years since it had obtained the court judgment from Antigua and Barbuda.)

However, the limitation deadlines are not the same across the country.  The deadline for starting a lawsuit in British Columbia to recognise a foreign judgment is six (6) years, not two (2).  A law in Ontario called the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act states that the courts in Ontario have to recognise court judgments obtained in other Canadian provinces.

H.M.B. Holdings decided to seek a court judgment in British Columbia, where the limitation deadline had not yet expired and then, within two (2) years of obtaining the British Columbian judgment, bring a lawsuit in Ontario to recognise the British Columbian judgment. 

Too clever by half?  Two (2) of the three (3) judges presiding at the Ontario Court of Appeal thought so.

When H.M.B. Holdings sued to have the British Columbia judgment registered in Ontario, the court dismissed the action.  H.M.B. Holdings appealed to the Court of Appeal. 

The “Original Judgment”

One of the legal issues considered by the Court was the meaning of the term “original judgment” in the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act.  The Act prohibits registration of a judgment where the judgment debtor would have a good defence if an action were brought on the “original judgment” [subsection 3(g)].  The majority held that “original judgment” referred to the Antiguan judgment.  Since Antigua and Barbuda would have valid limitations defence to an action to register the Antiguan judgment, the Act prohibits the registration of that “original judgment”, even if it takes a pit stop in Vancouver.

In dissent, Justice Nordheimer expressed his view that the term “original judgment” in the Act had to mean the specific judgment which the plaintiff sought to have registered which, in this case, was the British Columbian judgment. 

One can easily see both sides of this.  One could say that a litigant should not be allowed to do through the back door what it could not have done through the front door.  At the same time, one could equally say that judgment debtors should not be able to escape having to pay the judgment against them by having the enforcement proceedings defeated on procedural, rather than substantive, grounds.  There is also an argument that creative counsel should be rewarded, not punished, for using all of the legal mechanisms available to them in pursuit of justice for their client. 

UPDATE: We will have the opportunity to see this dispute go the next level, because the Supreme Court of Canada has granted H.M.B. Holdings Limited leave to appeal this decision. It will be fascinating to see how the Supreme Court deals with this question which divided the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Déjà Vu all Over Again

Posted on by

It was déjà vu all over again at the Court of Appeal on the issue of punitive damages. 

Punitive damages are already a bit weird in the realm of civil litigation, because the purpose of the civil law is to compensate.  It is not to punish: that is a purpose of the criminal law.  Yet punitive damages can be awarded in a civil proceeding to (as their name implies) punish the defendant when his, her, or its conduct has been so malicious, oppressive, and high-handed that it offends the court’s sense of decency. 

The Supreme Court of Canada has said that punitive damages should be rare and modest, and they usually are.  I’ve only ever argued one case in which punitive damages were awarded and, even then, the punitive damages were only $25,000.00.

But sometimes, a showstopper of a case will come along where the jury makes an enormous award of punitive damages.  Two Ontario cases, about twelve years apart, both featured jury awards of $1,000,000.00 for punitive damages.  And yes, one of the cases involved Wal-Mart.

The first case was Whiten v Pilot Insurance.  A homeowner’s house burned down.  Her insurance company took the unreasonably hard-headed position of denying her claim on the basis that she had burned the house down herself, even though Pilot Insurance had no evidence of arson whatsoever.  The homeowner had to sue her insurance company, and take it all the way to trial, just to get her house rebuilt.  The jury was incensed by Pilot Insurance’s intransigent stance and, in addition to the compensatory damages, ordered the defendant to pay punitive damages of $1,000,000.00. 

Pilot Insurance appealed and the Court of Appeal reduced the punitive damages from $1,000,000.00 to $100,000.00.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, though, the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling on punitive damages and reinstated the jury award of $1,000,000.00.

The second case was Boucher v Wal-Mart Canada Corp.  Ms. Boucher, an employee at a Windsor Wal-Mart, had been really viciously bullied by her immediate supervisor.  This supervisor yelled at Ms. Boucher, singled her out, screamed at her, and swore both to and about her, both in front of and behind her back.  (This manager, a one Jason Pinnock, had a propensity for workplace use of the F-word which was nothing short of pathological.) 

Perhaps the most disturbing part of this case of workplace bullying was the fact that Wal-Mart took Mr. Pinnock’s side and backed him up.  The jury was not impressed, and ordered Wal-Mart to pay Ms. Boucher punitive damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00. 

History repeated itself at the Court of Appeal.  When faced with an appeal of a $1,000,000.00 jury award for punitive damages, the Ontario Court of Appeal reduced it to—you guessed it—$100,000.00. 

Obviously it was not the same panel of judges at the Court of Appeal who heard Boucher as heard Whiten.  Still, it seems strange that the Boucher panel did not say, “Hey, last time we slashed a jury’s $1,000,000.00 punitive damages award by 90% the Supreme Court reinstated it – maybe we shouldn’t do that again?” 

In Whiten, the Supreme Court of Canada did not go so far as to say ‘the jury is always right’.  They said that juries should be given enough leeway to do their job and their awards should not be overturned on appeal unless they are “irrational”.  The Supreme Court went on to hold that, in that case, the jury award of $1,000,000.00, was not irrational and it should not have been overturned. 

In Boucher, the Court of Appeal held that $100,000.00 was all that was rationally required to punish Wal-Mart and to denounce and deter its conduct.  Which, allow me to say, is bonkers.  This is Wal-Mart we are talking about.  If $1,000,000.00 was not an “irrational” amount to punish, denounce, and deter a small Canadian insurance company which acted in an oppressive and high-handed manner, then how is the same amount of money, awarded for the same purpose, against one of planet earth’s largest corporations “irrational”? 

The facts of the two (2) cases were different but the respective juries’ decisions on the issue of punitive damages were the same.  If it was incorrect for the Court of Appeal to have reduced the first award by 90%, then I would have argued that it was similarly incorrect for the Court of Appeal to have reduced the second award by 90%. 

Might history have been repeated at the Supreme Court?  Would the Supreme Court have reinstated the million-dollar damages award in the Boucher case, just like it reinstated the million-dollar damages award in the Whiten case?  We will never know, because Ms. Boucher did not seek leave to appeal to Canada’s top court.

Sprayed in the Face with a Fire Extinguisher at Wal-Mart

Posted on by

Wal-Mart gets involved in a lot of litigation in Ontario, usually not by choice.  The most recent lawsuit against Wal-Mart to make it through the courts is a doozy.

It was brought by a guy name Kim Manos who was accidentally sprayed with a fire extinguisher by an employee at the Waterdown Wal-Mart.  This is amazing to me for a few reasons.  First, how does a fire extinguisher go off accidentally anyway?  Second, what employee thinks it is a good idea to handle a fire extinguisher within spraying-distance of a customer?  And, of course, what are the chances you are going to hit the customer who already has respiratory problems?

I’m also fascinated by this case because I used to live in Waterdown and the Waterdown Wal-Mart is the Wal-Mart I have visited more than any other.  From a customer’s perspective, it was a really well-run store.  It was clean, safe, and well-organised.  My personal experience would be that it was one of the better-run Wal-Mart stores I have seen.  It is unlikely to make an appearance on the “People of Wal-Mart” blog.  (The Wal-Mart here in Stratford, on the other hand . . .)

Kim Manos sued Wal-Mart and the matter went to trial.  Wal-Mart retained medical experts who disputed the Plaintiff’s contention that he had developed a particular respiratory condition.  Wal-Mart’s experts also opined that, even if the Plaintiff did have that respiratory condition, it wasn’t caused by the fire extinguisher accidentally discharging in his face in the Waterdown Wal-Mart.  (It sounds more and more ridiculous each time I say it.)

The Plaintiff won at trial.  In addition to compensation for his actual monetary losses, the trial judge also awarded him $225,000.00 in general damages for his pain and suffering which, for sure, is on the high end for this kind of injury.

Insufficiency of Reasons

In giving his reasons, the trial judge accepted the evidence of the Plaintiff’s medical experts and did not accept the evidence of Wal-Mart’s medical experts.  The problem was that he never explained in his reasons why he was rejecting the evidence of Wal-Mart’s expert witnesses. 

Wal-Mart appealed.  The Court of Appeal granted the appeal and ordered a new trial.  The Court of Appeal’s rationale was that the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the expert evidence put forward by the Defendant.  The Court of Appeal confirmed that the trial judge was entitled to reject the Defendant’s expert evidence if he wanted to, but he had to give intelligible reasons for doing so.  By giving no reasons at all, he made it impossible for the Defendant to know why it had lost and made his decision incapable of meaningful appellate review. 

This is another reason why I find this case so fascinating because the very first appeal I ever argued, way back in my law school days, was successful for the very same reason.  In that case, we were appealing a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.  The Committee had a report from an independent assessor which was critical of the doctor in question.  In its decision, the Committee did not accept the conclusions of the report, but neither did it give any reasons for rejecting the report’s conclusions.  In the appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board we argued that this was unreasonable, and the Board agreed.  The Board held, “The Committee is not bound to accept the report of an independent assessor, but it is incumbent on the Committee to offer cogent reasons if it chooses to reject or discount the opinion of an assessor.”

That case was sent back to the Committee for re-consideration, just like the Manos case was sent back for a new trial. 

Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada?

So when will the Manos case be re-tried?  Not any time soon, because (plot twist!) Mr. Manos has sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The overwhelming majority of applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada are dismissed, and my money would be on this application for leave being dismissed as well. 

So why would the Plaintiff seek leave when the chance of getting it is so low?  Well, one reason might be because the pay-off would be very much worth it in the unlikely event that that leave (and the subsequent appeal) are granted.  Success at the Supreme Court could mean that the Plaintiff gets to keep his $225,000.00 general damages award and would not have to put in the time and expense of a re-trial (which he might not even win, and which could also be appealed . . .).  I suspect that the Plaintiff knows very well that, even if he wins the re-trial, his is not going to get anywhere near the $225,000.00 he got the first time, because that really is on the high end of damages for the type of injury which he allegedly suffered.  If he can get the Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeal’s ruling the $225,000.00 damages award will stand and he will almost certainly be better off than he would be after winning the re-trial. 

I will keep a close eye on this fascinating case and provide an update once the application for leave to appeal is decided by the Supreme Court.

Publicity Placing Person in False Light

Posted on by

To successfully sue someone, you need to have a legally-recognised basis for suing them.  These legally-recognised bases for suing someone are called “causes of action”.  Many of them are obvious and well known: where the evidence justifies it, you can sue someone for breach of contract, wrongful dismissal, or defamation.  Other causes of action are less well known, but nevertheless well-established, such as certiorari or mandamus.

Notably, the list of legally-recognised causes of action is not a closed list.  Where the right conditions are met, new causes of action can be “discovered” by the courts. 

False Light

Late last year, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice “discovered” another new cause of action in the family law case of Yenovkian v Gulian. 

There was a trial to determine the issues of custody, access, and spousal support.  At the trial, the wife put forward evidence of websites written and published by the husband which alleged that the wife and her parents were involved in kidnapping, child abuse, assault, and making death threats (among other things). 

The husband’s websites (which are still up, in violation of court orders to take them down) are written by someone who is clearly unhinged, and the allegations they contains against his ex-wife are outrageous.  The judge decided to give Ms. Gulian a remedy for the injury she suffered in having these things written about her on the Internet. 

Rather than give the wife a judgment which was based on an already-recognised cause of action, the judge decided to base the ruling on a cause of action which had never previously been recognised in Ontario law.  The Judge held that the cause of action by which Ms. Gulian was entitled to a remedy was “publicity placing a person in a false light”, and she awarded Ms. Gulian $100,000.00.

This ruling creates a situation of significant uncertainty in Ontario law.  First, it is not at all clear from this ruling how “publicity placing a person in a false light” is different from good old-fashioned defamation.  I don’t see how accusing your ex-wife of kidnapping and child abuse could possibly be anything other than defamatory so, in my personal view, the judge did not need to recognise a new cause of action in order to give Ms. Gulian a remedy: she could have simply awarded Ms. Gulian damages based on defamation. 

Second, because this case was decided by the Superior Court and not by the Court of Appeal, it is not binding on other courts in Ontario.  My own suggestion would be that the job of introducing new causes of action into Ontario law should be left to the Court of Appeal, whose decisions are binding on all the courts in the province.  The last time a new cause of action was discovered in Ontario (“intrusion upon seclusion”), it was done by the Court of Appeal.  The last time the Superior Court attempted to discover a new cause of action (the “tort of harassment”), the ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal did not have the opportunity, in this case, to weigh in on the “false light” cause of action because the husband did not appeal.  One judge of the Superior Court was convinced that the cause of action of “publicity placing a person in a false light” exists in Ontario; another judge hearing a similar case may not be similarly convinced.  This creates the possibility of inconsistent legal rulings in the Ontario courts, which in turn could potentially erode public confidence in the justice system. Until the Court of Appeal rules on the “false light” cause of action, it will remain a big question mark in Ontario law. 

When will we next see a new cause of action recognised in Ontario?  I suspect it will not be for some time.  A new cause of action is supposed to fill a gap in the existing law, and where it is not immediately obvious that there is a gap in the law which needs to be filled, it will be less likely that any potential new cause of action will be recognised. 

An 11-Year Long Employment Case

Posted on by

Civil litigation clients often ask, “How long will this case take?” People who have never been involved in a civil court proceeding may be surprised to learn that civil matters are usually measured in years, not weeks. But how long can a lawsuit go on for? An employment law case released by the Ontario Court of Appeal this past year shows just how long a lawsuit in Ontario could take.

On January 31st, 2019, the Court of Appeal heard an appeal of a case which had been argued in 2016 and decided in 2017. The Court of Appeal was remarkably efficient, releasing its decision just six (6) weeks after the appeal was argued.

The interesting date in this case, however, is not the date on which the judgment at first instance was handed down, or the date on which the case was argued, but the date on which the case was commenced – 2008.

Most people understand that even after you go to court there is a right of appeal, and they understand that an appeal will add some time to the length of your legal matter. In this case, the time between judgment and appeal (less than two (2) years) was a drop in the bucket compared to the time between the commencement of the lawsuit and the argument at first instance, which took a staggering eight (8) years.

What we do not learn from the reported decision is whether or not there were valid reasons for the eight (8) years which transpired between the employment law case being commenced and it being argued at court. Extraordinary delays sometimes happen in civil litigation, but there are usually extraordinary events behind those delays, such as one of the lawyers being removed from the case due to illness, retirement, or death, for example.

A new rule came into effect in Ontario in 2012 with the goal of trying to prevent these sorts of extraordinary delays. Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure now requires the Registrar of the court to automatically dismiss every lawsuit which has not been set down for trial after the five-year anniversary of it having been commenced. This rule does not mean that a lawsuit has to go to trial within five (5) years, only that it has to be ready to go to trial within five (5) years. It seeks to strike a balance between giving parties and their lawyers enough time to prepare their lawsuit, while at the same time eliminating totally unreasonable delays.

And of course, this particular case is an outlier. Rarely will a relatively uncomplicated employment law case drag on for years, let alone eleven (11) years. But this case nevertheless stands as a marker of just how long, in some circumstances, a civil lawsuit can actually take.