Ontario Civil


Payment form said nothing about membership and seniority being cancelled

Applicant was member of respondent. Applicant renewed membership as full season vendor for 2013 market season. Full season stall fees were due by April 25, 2013 in form of three post-dated cheques. Applicant submitted full season application with cheque for one-third of amount of stall fees on April 5, 2013. Applicant did not retrieve registered letter reminding applicant he was at risk of losing full season status and seniority if he failed to deliver cheques. Respondent rejected applicant’s full season application and terminated his seniority. Applicant’s stalls were reassigned to another member. Applicant sought declaration that respondent breached bylaws, rules and regulation and requested recognition of his seniority, and return of specified stalls. Other stalls were available for applicant’s use provided he supplied cheques. Applicant’s seniority was ordered reinstated. Applicant was to be offered first choice of any vacant stall for 2014 season. Respondent’s removal of his seniority, and reallocation of his stalls was premature given confusion of bylaws, rules and regulation, stall payment form and messages delivered by general manager and director, applicant’s responses to address default, and respondent’s rejection of his full season application. Stall payment form was silent as to repercussions of not delivering three post-dated cheques by April 25, 2013. Stall payment form said nothing about membership and seniority being cancelled. Member was entitled to 30 days’ notice to address default.

Lacroix v. 1723445 Ontario Inc. (Dec. 31, 2013, Ont. S.C.J., Belch J., File No. Ottawa 13-57709) 236 A.C.W.S. (3d) 291.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is the highest number of lawyer candidates in the upcoming Law Society of Ontario Bencher election since 1995, but turn-out is declining. Do you think voting should be mandatory for all lawyers and paralegals in this election?