Ontario Civil


Plaintiff’s business plan too general, didn’t consider possibilities

Plaintiff commenced purchase of minor league hockey team. League in which team played was independent league not sanctioned by governing body for organized hockey. Hockey arenas generally did not deal with independent league since it was frowned upon by sanctioned leagues. Defendant was hockey arena that agreed to rent ice time to plaintiff despite knowing her team was in independent league. Ice time was to be provided for three-day spring camp, summer camp, and regular winter league purposes. Plaintiff completed purchase of team. Defendant cancelled contracts after being pressured by people involved with sanctioned leagues. Plaintiff sold team. Plaintiff brought action against defendant for damages for breach of contract. Action allowed in part. Plaintiff was awarded $2,216.05 for special damages and $1,000 for nominal damages for future losses. Plaintiff had big plans but evidence indicated her profit expectations were not realistic. Only four out of desired 40 players had showed up at spring camp. No commitments had been made for summer camp and plaintiff’s plans had been too ambitious. Nothing indicated plaintiff would have earned profit. Profits for winter league were speculative. Plaintiff had no scout for locating players. Plaintiff’s business plan was so general that realities had not been considered. Plaintiff was not experienced business person. There was no evidence of how profitable other teams had been.

Park v. Wave Hockey Inc. (Sep. 25, 2013, Ont. S.C.J., M.J. Donohue J., File No. CV-11-2356-00) 233 A.C.W.S. (3d) 832.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?