Author Archives: Jassmine Girgis

About Jassmine Girgis

B.A. (Calgary); JD (With Distinction) (Western); LL.M. (Cambridge). Associate Professor. Member of the Alberta Bar. Please click here for more information.

What Are “Unrelated Assets” When It Comes to Environmental Reclamation Obligations? The Lending Industry Needs to Know

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case Commented On: Mantle Materials Group, Ltd v Travelers Capital Corp, 2023 ABCA 302 (CanLII)

PDF Version: What Are “Unrelated Assets” When It Comes to Environmental Reclamation Obligations? The Lending Industry Needs to Know

In recent years, the courts have seen many cases dealing with unfunded environmental reclamation obligations. Although these obligations have long raised issues, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd, 2019 SCC 5 (CanLII) (“Redwater”) commenced a new era for determining the priority for environmental end-of-life obligations in Canadian insolvencies (see my earlier post on Redwater, Lessons from Redwater: Disregard the AbitibiBowater Test and Legislate Super Priority for the Regulator). Continue reading →

There is No Presumption of Loss Flowing from a Breach of the Contractual Duty of Honest Performance

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case commented on: Bhatnagar v Cresco Labs Inc, 2023 ONCA 401 (CanLII)

PDF Version: There is No Presumption of Loss Flowing from a Breach of the Contractual Duty of Honest Performance

In Bhatnagar v Cresco Labs Inc, 2023 ONCA 401 (“Cresco Labs”), the Ontario Court of Appeal addressed whether the Supreme Court’s decision in CM Callow Inc v Zollinger, 2020 SCC 45 (CanLII) (“Callow”) created a legal presumption of loss once a court finds a breach of the contractual duty of good faith. The ONCA found that there is no presumption of loss and that a plaintiff claiming a loss of opportunity has the burden of providing evidence. Continue reading →

Can the Failure to Pay for Sexual Services Form the Basis of a Contractual Claim?

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case commented on: Sheehan v Samuelson, 2023 NSSM 27 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Can the Failure to Pay for Sexual Services Form the Basis of a Contractual Claim?

Pat and Al enter into a contract. Pat will drywall Al’s basement in exchange for $2,100. Pat drywalls Al’s basement but Al refuses to pay. Al breached his contractual obligations to Pat and would be liable for damages. Now, keep all the facts the same but assume that the service is sex work as opposed to dry walling – does that change the analysis at all? Continue reading →

Interpreting Restrictive Covenants in Commercial and Employment Agreements

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case Commented On: Ruel v Rebonne, 2023 ABCA 156 (CanLII)

PDF  Version: Interpreting Restrictive Covenants in Commercial and Employment Agreements

Restrictive covenants are usually found in two types of agreements: commercial agreements for the purchase of a business and employment agreements. In commercial agreements, these clauses protect the purchaser; after having made a substantial investment, the purchaser can build ties with customers without being concerned about the vendor setting up a competing business for a specified time. In employment agreements, they protect the employer’s interests. Continue reading →

Lifting the Corporate Veil v Personal Liability Under the Oppression Remedy: When Directors Behave Badly, When is Each Remedy Appropriate?

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case commented on: FNF Enterprises Inc v Wag and Train Inc, 2023 ONCA 92 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Lifting the Corporate Veil v Personal Liability Under the Oppression Remedy: When Directors Behave Badly, When is Each Remedy Appropriate?

In FNF Enterprises Inc v Wag and Train Inc, 2023 ONCA 92 (CanLII), the sole shareholder and director of Wag and Train Inc (Wag and Train) had stripped assets from the corporation, causing the company to defeat its creditors. In an action brought by a commercial landlord, the Ontario Court of Appeal declined to lift the corporate veil because the director’s improper conduct was not the source of the corporation’s liability, but it did allow the appellants to pursue the oppression remedy against the director personally. Continue reading →