Tron Construction

In the recent decision of Tron Construction (Re) (2022 SKKB 203), the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench determined that a claims process for builders’ lien claims can be established through a single-proceeding model under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act[1] rather than through provincial builders’ liens legislation (in this case, Ontario’s Construction Act[2]).

Premier Finance

Leaving false and malicious negative online reviews can make a reviewer liable for defamation, as is illustrated by this recent case. Here, a family lumber business was recently awarded $90,000 in damages after successfully claiming defamation against a disgruntled customer.  In Premier Finance Ltd. v Ginther, 2022 BCSC 1461[1] an unhappy customer, Mr. Ginther, posted negative reviews of the lumber company on Google and Yelp after experiencing what he claimed to be poor customer service.  The plaintiff, Longhouse Specialty Forest Products, owned by Brian and Moila Jenkins, sued for $675,000 claiming that Mr. Ginther’s reviews damaged the company’s reputation and caused it financial losses.  At trial, the BC Supreme Court found that Mr. Ginther’s reviews were defamatory as the plaintiffs met the burden of proof in establishing defamation and the defendant could offer no reasonable defense.  Finding the comments both untrue and malicious, the court awarded the plaintiffs both general and aggravated damages. 

Coins in a scale

EncoreFX Inc (Re)

How should ongoing bankruptcy proceedings be handled once debts have been resolved through a subsequent CCAA process?  In a recent decision from British Columbia, EncoreFX Inc. (Re), 2023 BCSC 39[1], the province’s Supreme Court addressed this surprisingly murky question.  

Contract Law

Aubin v Quantiam Technologies Inc.

In the recent case of Aubin v Quantiam Technologies Inc(2022 ABCA 288), the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the case management judge’s decision to enforce a minority shareholder’s security interest in a corporate owner’s shares in a corporation. The Court determined that doing so is not an unfair preference of one common shareholder over the others, and does not constitute oppression.

UPM Raflatac, Inc. v. Okanagan Label & Print Ltd., 2022 BCSC 1154

Can a general sales condition form part of a separate sales contract and thereby limit the liability of the seller? Yes, says the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the recent decision of UPM Raflatac, Inc. v. Okanagan Label & Print Ltd, 2022 BCSC 1154; particularly when the parties have done business together over a long period of time, and the buyer has routinely assented to the terms of the general sales conditions associated with each sales contract.