Original Newsletter(s) this article was published in: Commercial Litigation Update: April 2020

The COVID-19 pandemic is, first and foremost, a human and health crisis. Social and physical distancing has been the almost universal response to this pandemic. The effect of social distancing on the economy, however, is significant.

Original Newsletter(s) this article was published in: Commercial Litigation Update: April 2020

The COVID-19 pandemic is, first and foremost, a human and health crisis. Social and physical distancing has been the almost universal response to this pandemic. The effect of social distancing on the economy, however, is significant.

Good afternoon.

Please find below our summaries of this past week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Topics covered included insurance broker negligence, zoning (use) bylaw enforcement, the wrongful termination of a commercial lease and the automatic right of appeal of bankruptcy orders.

Good afternoon.

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

In Thistle v Schumilias, an insurer refused to pay out on a life insurance policy on the basis that the insured had failed to disclose a pre-existing medical condition. The respondent commenced an action against the insurance company and during that litigation became aware of the potential professional negligence of the insurance agent who sold the policy.

Good afternoon.

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

In Armstrong v. Royal Victoria Hospital, the plaintiff was seriously injured during a colectomy surgery. The trial judge found the doctor who completed the surgery negligently caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The doctor appealed this liability finding, arguing that the trial judge erred by (i) establishing a standard of perfection; and (ii) conflating the causation and standard of care analysis.

Good evening.

Following are this week’s summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

Good evening,

Following are the summaries for this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

In an 8-1decision issued on May 20, the Supreme Court held that rejection of an executory trademark license agreement in a bankruptcy of the licensor is merely a breach, and not a termination or rescission, of the agreement. The licensee retains whatever rights it would have had upon a breach of the agreement prior to bankruptcy and can continue to use the trademarks pursuant to its contractual rights under applicable law. Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 587 U.S. ___, No. 17-1657 (May 20, 2019).

Background

Good evening.

Below are summaries of the civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal for Ontario this week.

What Is the "Rule in Gibbs"?

The rule in Gibbs is a long-established common law principle in which the Court of Appeal determined that a debt governed by English law cannot be discharged or compromised by a foreign insolvency proceeding(Anthony Gibbs and Sons v La Société Industrielle et Commerciale des Métaux (1890) 25 QBD 399). The rule in Gibbs remains a fundamental tenet of English insolvency law.

Why Does the Rule in Gibbs Matter?