June 18th, 2018
In a complex case involving the interpretation of a rent review clause in a 99-year ground lease, LOLG successfully argued that the principles of issue estoppel prohibited the re-litigation of a valuation approach decided by an arbitral panel in 1990. LOLG’s client, the tenant, was represented by Jonathan Lisus, Shaun Laubman and Brad Vermeersch. They also successfully argued that principles of modern contractual interpretation compelled an interpretation that would not destroy the economic viability of the rental apartment building owned by the client. The landlord was arguing for an interpretation of the rent review clause that would have seen the land market value calculated based on the potential for condominium development despite the fact condos could not be built on the property due to the long-term ground lease. The decision addressed the evolution of the case law in this area since the 1970s and rejected the landlord’s contention that cases interpreting similar contractual language were binding precedent. The case was heard on the Commercial List. The Court’s decision can be found here: 2018 06 15 – Reasons for Decision (Oct 31_18 & Apr 14_18 hearings)
June 6th, 2018
Paul Fruitman writes about the bias that binds lawyers to their cases in the Summer Edition of The Advocates’ Journal. To read the article, click here: Article – Why we fall in love with our cases
May 23rd, 2018
On May 22, 2018, Shaun Laubman presented at the Law Society of Ontario’s seminar on Enforcing Judgments.
May 22nd, 2018
The Court of Appeal released the first appellate decision in recent history where a landlord’s covenant to insure was found to not bar a claim against a tenant for loss from fire allegedly caused by the tenant’s negligence. Jonathan Lisus and Andrew Winton, acting on behalf of the appellant landlord, successfully argued that the trilogy of Supreme Court decisions from the 1970s which, for decades, has been relied upon to bar such claims, did not enunciate freestanding principles and does not change the fundamental rules of contractual interpretation. The Court applied those rules to interpret the lease at issue and agreed with the appellant that the parties created a contract where ordinary principles of negligence continued to apply, notwithstanding the landlord’s covenant to insure against damage caused by fire. The Court’s decision can be found here: http://canlii.ca/t/hs39p.
May 17th, 2018
Paul Michell, acting for Sunwing Airlines Inc., successfully opposed an application for judicial review brought by the Canadian Union of Public Employees challenging the promulgation by the federal cabinet of a 2015 regulation amending the rules governing the minimum ratio of flight attendants to passenger seats on commercial airlines. Justice Kane of the Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that the federal cabinet owes no duty of procedural fairness in exercising its authority to promulgate regulations, and that, even if it did, CUPE could not establish a legitimate expectation of consultation, or that it was denied procedural fairness in connection with the regulation. The decision is available at T-1175-15