My fellow lawyer Yanique Russell teaches a Civil Litigation Procedures course at Centennial College. She recently invited me to lecture to her students about how to write Statements of Claim, Statements of Defence, etc.. I spoke and answered questions on Friday, November 4, 2022. The students were bright and alert. They might hear from me again.
Many of us have heard Prime Minister Trudeau’s hostile comments about the truckers of the Freedom Convoy. We know about the efforts to keep food, fuel, and funds from truckers who, on the face of it, are peaceful demonstrators.
What rights do the truckers have to protest, if the protest annoys the government?
I am reminded of the landmark constitutional case of Roncarelli v. Duplessis, decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1959: [1959] SCR 121. Duplessis, premier and attorney-general of Quebec, was annoyed by the Witnesses of Jehovah, a religious group he saw as a small fringe minority with unacceptable views.
The Witnesses were publishing and selling religious tracts. Many Witnesses were charged under City of Montreal by-laws for distributing, peddling, and canvassing without a licence.
Roncarelli, a local restauranteur, acted as surety and provided bail for many of the Witnesses. This was obviously a perfectly legal thing for him to do.
But this helped the Witnesses, so Duplessis ordered the Quebec Liquor Commission to yank Roncarelli’s liquor licence. The Supreme Court of Canada found that Duplessis was wrong to make the order, and the Quebec Liquor Commission was wrong to obey it. The Supreme Court awarded damages.
In future will we think the government and police acted legally and reasonably against the truckers? Or will we see them as oppressors acting against human rights, like Duplessis?
# # #
In the case of Alberta Health Services v. Pawlowski, 2021 ABQB 813, Mr. Justice Germain of Alberta’s Court of Queen’s Bench, after finding two brothers in contempt of court, made a strange decision on sanctions.
I have no opinion on whether the finding of contempt of court was correct, but the decision on sanctions seems wrong. It may even tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Justice Germain ordered that the two brothers, whenever speaking out as to their views, would also have to make statements undermining their views. The exact wording of this compelled speech would be:
I am also aware that the views I am expressing to you on this occasion may not be views held by the majority of medical experts in Alberta. While I may disagree with them, I am obliged to inform you that the majority of medical experts favour social distancing, mask wearing, and avoiding large crowds to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Most medical experts also support participation in a vaccination program unless for a valid religious or medical reason you cannot be vaccinated. Vaccinations have been shown statistically to save lives and to reduce the severity of COVID-19 symptoms.
Now, everything in that compelled speech may be true. But even if it is, I see no proper basis for compelling the brothers to say it. According to section 2 a. of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our fundamental freedoms include “freedom of conscience and religion”. Our fundamental freedoms also, according to 2 b., include “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”.
As for the judge’s statement in paragraph 37 that Pastor Pawlowski (one of the two brothers) must express his views “in a respectful, hate-free way,” I strongly disagree. We live in a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute monarchy. So the servants and agents of the Crown, and their actions and opinions, are not entitled to be spoken of respectfully or without scorn, even vitriolically expressed scorn.
COVID-19 is dangerous, but so is undermining our rights and freedoms.
You might also be interested in the following blog post by Leonid Sirota and Mark Mancini : Don’t Make Idiots into Martyrs – Double Aspect
Earlier this year I spoke to real estate investors and agents about legal tips and traps in real estate sales and purchases, to Claude Boiron’s group at Royal LePage Terrequity Realty in Toronto. The presentation went well so one of my goals for 2019 is to make more presentations to groups of real estate investors and agents.
When real estate values sag, some buyers get severe buyer’s remorse. Some of them, rightly or wrongly, repudiate the purchase, refusing to close. I call them “runaway buyers.” When runaway buyers register a caution they should expect the court to remove the caution and order costs against them.
On Friday, Feb 2/18, the article “I Want My Deposit Back” appeared in The Globe And Mail (Ontario Edition). It discusses a case of mine where a real estate buyer backed out of the purchase, refusing to close. The buyer then, because of the deposit, registered a caution against title to the sellers’ land.
I went to court for an Order to remove the caution from title. The judge decided that the buyer should never have registered the caution. There was no proper basis for the caution. It was for an improper purpose – to gain leverage in the dispute about the deposit.
The judge ordered the buyer to pay costs on a substantial indemnity scale to compensate the sellers for their legal expense in going to court for the Order to remove the caution.
Note that the judge did not rule on whether the buyer had a good basis for repudiation. That issue is for another day.
Other buyers also recently got the idea of registering a caution to press for return of the deposit. If this is a trend it is a bad one.
Globe subscribers can read the article online: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/toronto/backing-out-of-a-real-estate-deal-a-cautionary-tale-against-strong-arm-tactics/article37801532/
There are advantages to using your outside lawyer as a confidential advisor, and not just for legal issues. Also, do it right and nobody can ever find out what you and your business lawyer talked about.
Here is a video about this:
Sooner or later your distributor will have a change of management, and the new management could ruin the business. This is a problem not just for the distributor but also for the manufacturer. In my latest business strategy video – number three in the series – I discuss the problem and some contractual terms that can help:
Here are some of the commonest parts of a contract that you need to know about, for contracts in the common law jurisdictions, such as most of Canada, the United States, and Great Britain.
Parties
It takes at least two parties to make a contract. Who the parties really are is vitally important but not always obvious.
Suppose you negotiated with good old Joe of Joe’s Fish & Bait Limited, and Joe signs for the corporation. The corporation would be bound by the contract but, unless there was a special clause in the contract saying so, or other special circumstances, good old Joe himself would not be bound.
So Joe usually would not be liable if the corporation breaches the contract, even if it was Joe himself who decided that it would breach the contract.
Even sophisticated businesses with millions of dollars at stake can make this mistake. Consider the great salad oil scandal of decades ago. A crooked businessman, Anthony “Tino” De Angelis, borrowed millions based on American Express warehouse receipts verifying that he had a sea of salad oil. He actually had nowhere near as much salad oil as the warehouse receipts said. The lending kept going for years despite warning signs, including tip-off warnings about the fraud, because the lenders trusted American Express.
When the fraud finally came to an end American Express pointed out that the receipts came from a subsidiary, not from the main American Express company. This let American Express negotiate a payment to the defrauded lenders that was a fraction of what it would otherwise have had to pay.
Consideration
This can be complex. The key point is that for a binding contract all sides have to give something of value. Value can take many forms, such as money, real estate, binding promises to do things…
Some lawyers would disagree but in my opinion it is useless to write into the contract “magic words” like “payment of $1 and other good and valuable consideration”. Was the $1 really paid, and can you prove it? What is the “other good and valuable consideration”? The wording is not harmful but it might well not save the contract if it is unclear what the real consideration is.
Decades ago I represented a buyer. He bought out the other shareholder in a corporation by assuming the debts and handing over a miniscule cash payment, in coins. I actually photocopied those coins to help me prove, if it ever became an issue, that my client had really paid.
Term & Renewal
Some contracts cover only a specific event, like a simple sale of property, but others cover a lengthy period, a “term”.
Understand what the term is, because it can make the difference between a good deal and a disaster. A restaurant with only two years left in the term of its lease would be much less valuable than one with 4 years left to go plus the option to renew for up to two five-year terms.
Written?
Not all contracts have to be in writing, but having it written certainly helps if you need to prove exactly what the deal was.
Some contracts must be in writing. For example Ontario’s Statute of Frauds, and similar laws in other places, require that a contact to sell land, or a lease, needs to be in writing.
Is the FULL deal written?
A partly written contract can be even more dangerous than a completely unwritten one. If what the other side gets is written out in full detail some of what you are supposed to get is left out of the written contract, you are in trouble.
Arbitration clause
If the contract has an arbitration clause then some or all disputes related to the contract might have to be dealt with by an arbitration and not by a judge in the regular courts.
Governing Law & Jurisdiction
If all the parties to a contract are in one place, and the contract itself is to be carried out in the same place, you probably don’t need such clauses.
But it is not always that simple, so clauses can set out what kind of law applies, or what courts will handle any problems coming from the contract.
So the contract could theoretically have a clause saying problems arising from the contract are to be handled by the courts of Albania (jurisdiction) applying the law of Italy (governing law). More often the jurisdiction clause and the governing law clause will point to the same place, such as the courts of California applying the law of California.
Force Majeure
Force majeure clauses set out what circumstances beyond the control of a party would suspend or end that party’s obligation to fulfil the contract. In those contracts containing them, the clauses might for example cover one or more of war, expropriation, crime, and natural disaster.
Conclusion
You must understand that I have listed only some of the contract clauses you might need to pay attention to. Also, you might have a special situation that is an exception to the above general comments.
If you would like to talk with me about contracts or other business law issues, or could use some legal help, you can contact me by phone at 416 929 7202 or by e-mail at afrank@FrankLaw.ca.
Also, you can get a copy of the above article in .pdf format, suitable for sharing with your contacts electronically or by a paper printout, by e-mailing a request to me at afrank@FrankLaw.ca
The Commons Institute has invited me to join the faculty for their program Advanced Topics in Business Law, scheduled for February 18, 2015 at Bond Place Hotel (across from Dundas Square) in Toronto.
My topic is Shareholder Disputes — Causes and Remedies.
For more information, and to register, you can go to http://thecommonsinstitute.com/busn15.html