|
|
- notable cases
| University Health Network v. Made in Japan Japanese Restaurants Inc. |
| 2003 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[2003] O.J. No. 2026 |
Click here for details |
|
University Health Network, the operator of the Toronto Western Hospital, leased the food court in the hospital to
Made In Japan and Mrs. Vanelli's for a five-year term. Made In Japan and Mrs. Vanelli's sublet their food court premises to franchisees. For
numerous reasons, the businesses failed within eight months of execution of the head leases. The Court found
the real issue to be determined in both the application and the action was to determine the responsibility for the
premature failure of the business. |
| Empress Plaza Inc. v. Mmmuffins Canada Corp. |
| 2001 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[2001] O.J. No. 4022 |
|
|
Mmmuffins, the defendant, sought leave to amend the statement of defence by pleading a specific
settlement offer in addition to the general assertion that the plaintiff, Empress Plaza, failed to mitigate.
Empress Plaza's solicitor was examined on discovery, and only after giving evidence with
respect to Empress's settlement position did the solicitor assert the claim of privilege. Mmmuffins’
motion was allowed, as once Empress provided answers through its solicitor respecting the
settlement negotiations, it waived any privilege it could claim over the discussions and the
documents. |
| Heslin v. Verbeeten |
| 2001 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[2001] O.J. No. 1602 |
|
|
This was an appeal by the purchasers from the decision striking their summons to Heslin, one of the
vendors. The Court allowed the appeal and found that in ordering the summons to be struck, the wrong
principles had been applied by the Master. In the circumstances, the summons was not an abuse of
process and should not have been struck. |
| Laurentian Bank of Canada v. Herzog |
| 1999 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[1999] O.J. No. 3272 |
|
|
This was an appeal by Herzog from a Master's decision dismissing his motion to compel the plaintiff
Laurentian Bank of Canada to deliver its affidavit of documents. Herzog argued that he required the
Bank's affidavit of documents to prepare his case, including his response to the summary judgment
motion. Herzog's appeal was allowed, the Master's order was set aside, and the Bank was ordered
to deliver its affidavit of documents. Absent dilatory or abusive conduct, it was only fair that a party
should be entitled to insist on delivery of an affidavit of documents, particularly when it had been
requested at an early stage of the proceedings. |
| Alfonso v. The Second Cup Ltd. |
| 1997 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[1997] O.J. No. 3993 |
|
|
Alfonso, the plaintiff franchisee, alleged the defendant franchisor acted in bad faith in failing to renew the
head lease. The defendant was the tenant and the plaintiff the subtenant, and the plaintiff had intended to
sell the franchise. The Court found that there was no legal obligation on the defendant to renew the head
lease so that the plaintiff could maximize his sale price. The term of the franchise agreement had expired
and it contained no right in the plaintiff to renew. |
| Mele v. Royal Bank of Canada |
| 1996 (Ont. C.J.) (General Division) |
[1996] O.J. No. 230 |
|
|
The Bank's motion for summary judgment on the non-transaction loans was dismissed. There was an issue for trial as to
whether or not a bribe had been paid to the Bank employee, which would cause the transaction loan to be declared illegal,
void and unenforceable. This issue could not be resolved on a summary judgment motion. |
| Jones v. Kansa General Insurance Co. |
| 1992 (Ont. C.A.) |
96 D.L.R. (4th) 286 |
|
|
The plaintiff Jones, a resident of New York, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in New York City.
He sued the manufacturer of his motorcycle helmet, Griffin, in New York and obtained judgment there
in the amount of US$2,027,181.10 General Insurance Co. provided comprehensive general liability
insurance, including product liability, to Griffin under a policy which was written in Ontario. The plaintiff
brought an action against the defendant in Ontario based on the New York judgment, which was
unsatisfied. On appeal, the Court found section 132 of the Insurance Act, which provides that
one may sue an insurer upon an unsatisfied judgment against an insured, should not be limited to
Ontario judgments, but applies equally to foreign judgments. |
|
|
|
