C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger, 2020
The case provides some excellent guidance on duty of honest performance in relation to a winter maintenance contract. In 2012, a group of condominium corporations entered into a winter maintenance contract and in early 2013, they decided to unilaterally terminate the contract without informing the contractor.
Throughout the spring and summer of 2013, contractor had discussions regarding a renewal of the winter maintenance agreement and thought that it was likely to get a two‑year renewal of the winter maintenance contract and hence performed work above and beyond the summer maintenance contract at no charge, which it hoped would act as an incentive for renewal of the winter maintenance agreement.
When the contractor was put on notice to terminate the winter maintenance agreement in September 2013, a statement of claim for breach of contract, alleging bad faith was filed by the contractor.
1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association, 2020
Freedom of expression is indeed a fundamental right. This case is about what happens when individuals and organizations use litigation as a tool to quell such expression, which, in turn, quells participation and engagement in matters of public interest. The case provides some excellent discussions on anti - SLAPP legislation. It offers guidance on how to properly apply the framework set out in s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. You cannot miss this one if you are dealing with defamation lawsuits.
Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, 2020
An arbitration clause that requires the plaintiff to travel to Amesterdam at his own expense can be considered unconscionable. or Can it? Also when you are dealing with a giant like UBER, what are your options when just to go through the process of arbtration will cost you most part of your annual income? Does it make impossible for the vulnerable plaintiff to arbitrate the matter? Should UBER pay the expenses to the plainiff to attend the arbitration? Interesting discussions throughout the case.
1688782 Ontario Inc. v. Maple Leaf Foods Inc., 2020
In 2008, a number of Mr. Sub franchisees were affected by the decision of Maple Leaf to recall meat products that had been processed in one of its factories in which a listeria outbreak had occurred. Following the recall, the franchisees experienced a shortage of product for six to eight weeks. In a lawsuit (class action) against Maple Leaf, the motion judge held that Maple Leaf owed the franchisees a duty to supply a product fit for human consumption, and that the contaminated meat products posed a real and substantial danger, so as to ground a duty of care. The Court of Appeal allowed Maple Leaf’s appeal, and found that no duty of care was owed to the franchisees. In 5-4 decision, it was held Maple Leaf does not owe a duty of care to the franchisees in respect of these matters. Pure economic loss may be recoverable in certain circumstances, but there is no general right in tort protecting against the negligent or intentional infliction of pure economic loss.