ONTARIO – In a claim by a trustee under s.96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (“BIA”) to recover the fruits of fraud committed by corporate officers before bankruptcy, the common law doctrine of corporate attribution was inapplicable, and the fruits of the fraud were disgorged from the fraudsters.
Continue readingCase #043E – Akelius Canada Ltd. v. 2436196 Ontario Inc.
ONTARIO – Where an innocent purchaser claims damages for the vendor’s breach of a real estate transaction, damages are limited to the actual loss suffered by the purchaser. In the absence of evidence of mitigation, the loss is limited to costs thrown away. The innocent purchaser is not entitled to recover as damages the profit subsequently earned by the breaching vendor on the resale of the property.
Continue readingCase #042E – PCL Constructors v. Johnson Controls
ONTARIO – An arbitration clause implicitly includes the power to award damages unless a contrary intention appears. A commercially unreasonable interpretation of the arbitration clause will not oust the arbitrator’s jurisdiction. Where an arbitration agreement provides that all disputes are subject to arbitration, correctable procedural irregularities do not oust the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.
Continue readingCase #041D – Royal Bank of Canada v. Mundo Media Ltd.
ONTARIO – Court appointed receiver not bound by contractual arbitration agreement requiring the Receiver to arbitrate in New York as such a requirement would be unfair to the debtor’s creditors and inconsistent with the Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act.
Continue readingCase #040D – 1107051 Ontario Ltd. v. GG Kingspa Enterprises Limited Partnership
ONTARIO – Arbitral award set aside as the parties did not grant the Arbitrator express authorization to determine the disputes between them. In arbitrations under the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991 S.O. 1991, c.17 (“Act”) or the Model Law (UNICITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration), the Tribunal may decide “ex aequo et bono, or as amiable compositeur” only in circumstances where the parties have expressly authorized it to do so.
Continue readingCase #039D – Nelson v. The Government of the United Mexican States
ONTARIO – International arbitral award not set aside as due process and procedural standards met. Merely disagreeing with the outcome does not give rise to a review under the guise of Article 34(2)(a)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law as adopted in the Ontario International Commercial Arbitration Act.
Continue reading