Canada: Court Of Appeal Summaries (October 27 To 31, 2014)

Last Updated: November 6 2014
Article by John Polyzogopoulos

Ariston Realty Corp v Elcarim Inc, 2014 ONCA 737

[Juriansz, LaForme and Lauwers JJ.A.]

Counsel:
D.A. Taub and E. Gersh, for the appellants/respondents by way of cross-appeal
B.B. Skolnik, for the respondent/appellants by way of cross-appeal

Keywords:

Contract Law, Real Estate, Contract Interpretation, Listing Agreement, Holdover Clause, Commission, Quantum Meruit, Director and Officer Liability

Facts:

The appellants and respondents by cross-appeal were two real estate investment firms ("Elcarim") and their sole officer and director ("Mascall"). The respondents and cross-appellants were a real estate brokerage firm ("Ariston") and a commercial real estate broker and principal at the firm ("Natale").

Elcarim and Ariston entered into a listing agreement for the sale of a property owned by Elcarim. The agreement provided the following holdover clause:

"I agree to pay you a commission of 5% of the sale price of my property on completion of any sale ... effected during the currency of this agreement from any source whatsoever, or on any sale ... effected within six months after the expiry of this agreement with any party to whom you or your representatives or co-operating brokers have introduced my said property during the term of this agreement, provided you have notified me in writing prior to the expiry of this agreement of the name of such party you or your representatives or co-operating brokers have introduced to the property...."[Emphasis added.]

Ariston introduced Context Development Inc. ("Context") to Mascall, but did not provide written notification that it had introduced Context to the property. Three and a half months after the listing agreement expired, Context signed an agreement of purchase and sale of the property. Ariston submitted an invoice to Elcarim for commission on the sale. Elcarim did not pay and Ariston commenced an action for payment.

The trial judge found that Natale and Context's broker ("Struys") had introduced Context to Mascall for the purpose of discussing the property during the term of the listing agreement. The trial judge held that Ariston's failure to provide written notice of Context's introduction to Mascall was of no significance. She held Elcarim and Mascall personally, liable for the unpaid commission, together with interest.

Holding:

Appeal allowed. Cross-appeal allowed, in part.

Issues:

(1) Did Ariston introduce Context to the property, as required to claim commission under the terms of the listing agreement?

(2) If yes, is Ariston's failure to provide Elcarim with written notice of the introduction a bar to its claim for commission under the listing agreement?

(3) If yes, is Ariston instead entitled to compensation from Elcarim on the basis of quantum meruit?

(4) Is Mascall personally liable for any compensation owed by Elcarim to Ariston?

Reasoning:

(1) Given Ariston's failure to provide written notice of the alleged introduction, discussed below, Juriansz J.A. felt he did not need to determine whether the introduction requirement was satisfied.

(2) Contracts are to be interpreted in accordance with the intentions of the parties, as evidenced by the words used, and in light of the underlying context of the agreement. The trial judge misinterpreted the holdover clause to require that Elcarim was aware Ariston introduced Context to the property, regardless of whether written notice of the introduction was provided. In doing so, she effectively replaced the requirement of written notice with a requirement of actual notice. Such an interpretation did not accord with sound commercial principles and good business sense. The requirement of written notice, rather than actual notice, is intended to promote commercial certainty and to reduce the potential for litigation. The provision of written notice was a condition precedent to Ariston's entitlement to commission on a sale executed after the expiry of the listing agreement.

(3) Ariston could not claim its commission on the basis of quantum meruit for services provided pursuant to the listing agreement during the term of the agreement. Such services were governed by the agreement. The existence of the agreement was a juristic reason for refusing Ariston's claim for its commission on the basis of quantum meruit. However, Ariston could claim reasonable compensation for the services provided after the expiry of the listing agreement. The trial judge found that Natale continued to assist Elcarim after the expiry of the listing agreement. Elcarim accepted these services with full knowledge that the listing agreement had expired and that Natale expected to be paid for its efforts to close the deal with Context. Juriansz J.A. valued the services provided by Natale after the listing agreement expired at $20,000.

(4) The trial judge erred in ruling that Mascall was personally liable for payment of the commission. There was no basis for doing so. While Mascall was no doubt the directing mind of Elcarim, the evidence fell far short of establishing that she had acted in pursuit of some interest separate from that of the corporations, as required for her to be found personally liable.

Tags:

Real Estate, Contract Interpretation, Listing Agreement, Holdover Clause, Commission, Quantum Meruit, Director and Officer Liability
Legg v. Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board, 2014 ONCA 745

[Cronk, MacFarland and LaForme JJ.A.]

Counsel:
M. Sclisizzi and H. K. Pessione, for the appellant
S. J. Moreau and L. Sheffield, for the respondent

Keywords: Employment Law, Employment Agreement, Indemnity Clause, Contract Interpretation, Meaning of "Proceeding", Workplace Investigation

Facts:

The respondent was the Director of Communications and Public Affairs at the appellant School Board. In response to complaints that the respondent's expense claims were fraudulent, the School Board suspended the respondent from her position pending the results of an investigation.

The respondent sought payment of her ongoing legal fees from the School Board pursuant to the "Indemnity for Errors and Omissions" provision in her employment contract.

The School Board unsuccessfully argued that the respondent was not entitled to indemnity because the indemnity clause did not apply to workplace investigations, or alternatively, the exception to the indemnity clause was engaged in this case.

Issues:

(1) Did the application judge err in determining that a workplace investigation is a "proceeding" within the meaning of the indemnity clause?

(2) Did the application judge err in determining that the exception to the indemnity clause did not apply?

Holding:

Appeal dismissed.

Reasoning:

(1) No. There is case law that suggests that a "proceeding" is not restricted to encompass only legal actions or regulatory proceedings. If the School Board wished to restrict the application of the indemnity clause, it ought to have done so in more precise language.

(2) No. In order to invoke the exclusion for dishonest conduct, the School Board would need to raise a prima facie case against the respondent, and the evidence led by the School Board on this issue was inadmissible. The applications judge did not err in refusing to conduct an inquiry into the merits of this allegation. Pursuant to the employment contract, the appropriate forum in which to determine the merits of this allegation was before an arbitrator.

Tags:

Employment Law, Employment Agreement, Indemnity Clause, Contract Interpretation, Meaning of "Proceeding", Workplace Investigation

Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2095 v. West Harbour City (I) Residences Corp., 2014 ONCA 738

[Laskin, Rouleau and Epstein JJ.A.]

Counsel:
T. McRae and J.D. Vellis, for the appellant

R.P. Hoffman, H. Herskowitz and S. Adamski, for the respondent

Keywords

Costs

Facts

This was an appeal from the judgment of Justice David L. Corbett of the Superior Court of Justice dated September 23, 2013, with reasons reported at 2013 ONSC 5987.

Holding:

Costs endorsed.

Reasoning:

By agreement of the parties, costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $15,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

Tags:

Costs

Lester v. Bond, 2014 ONCA 749

[MacFarland, LaForme and Lauwers JJ.A.]

Counsel:
R. Lester, acting in person
E.V. Woudenberg, for the respondent

Keywords

Real Property, Encroachment, Retaining Wall, Dominant tenement

Facts

The application judge found that the retaining wall (which was the subject of the appellants' claim) encroached at most 0.74 metres and at its least 0.64 metres, into the right of way. The application judge held that the 1998 retaining wall, which replaced and continued an earlier wall in the same location, part of which was built by the City on its property, did not create a substantial obstruction to the appellants' rights pursuant to the 1916 grant. The real problem, the application judge found, was created by the "pinch point" at the north end of the right of way on City property.

Holding:

Appeal dismissed.

Reasoning:

The application judge's findings were well-supported by the evidence and are owed deference. The Court agreed with the application judge's reliance on Devaney v. McNab (1921), 69 D.L.R. 23 (Ont. C.A.) where it was held that the factual basis must be assessed when examining whether or not there has been a substantial interference with the dominant tenement holders' rights.

Tags:

Real Property, Encroachment, Retaining Wall, Dominant Tenement

Leggat v Jennings, 2014 ONCA 754

[Feldman, Juriansz, and Rouleau JJ.A]

Counsel:
S.F. Laubman and L. Epstein, acting in person
N.S. Rabinovitch and K. McCulloch, for the respondents

Keywords:

Corporate Law, Oppression Remedy, Sale Process Order, Parties, Tax

Facts:

A sale process was ordered for a car dealership as part of an oppression remedy claim. The court accepted the respondent's position that for sale purposes the two corporations being sold could no longer be parties to the litigation. Both parties stated in affidavits that their intent in agreeing to a sale process was that it would not affect or prejudice anyone in the litigation. The appellant appealed, arguing that there were tax reasons why any damages for oppression should be paid to and flow through the corporation and not directly to the plaintiffs.

Issues:

(1) Did the motions judge err in removing the corporations as parties to the main action for the purposes of the sale?

Holding:

Appeal dismissed.

Reasoning:

(1) No. It was clearly the intent of both parties and the motions judge that there be no effective prejudice as a result of the sale process order. The practical effect of the tax consequences could be achieved by expert calculation without actually flowing the payment of damages through a party corporation.

Tags:

Corporate Law, Oppression Remedy, Sale Process Order, Parties, Tax

Susin v. Susin, 2014 ONCA 733

[Hoy A.C.J.O., Feldman and Blair JJ.A.]

Counsel:
R. Klotz, for the appellant
M.A. Hoy, for the respondent

Keywords:

Law of Estates, Estate Litigation, Civil Contempt, Fines, Passing of Accounts, Proper Venue, Personal Service, Rules of Civil Procedure , Rules 2.03, 60.11

Facts

Dorino Susin ("Dorino") appeals from the motion judge's order declaring him in contempt and dismissing his motion for a passing of accounts in his father's estate to take place in Brampton. This case involves an ongoing and bitter estate dispute between two sets of siblings, with one side represented by Dorino and the other by Fermino Susin ("Fermino"). The motion judge, Ramsay J., ordered that a passing of accounts was not appropriate given the current stage in the estate litigation, and also sided with seven previous court orders that Welland, Ontario was the appropriate jurisdiction for the passing of accounts. Ramsay J. also declared Dorino in contempt of court and included four orders as part of this declaration: (a) that he be committed to prison for three days; (b) that he pay a fine to the estate in the amount of $10,000; (c) that he be prohibited from taking any further steps in this proceeding or in any proceedings to which Fermino or Habibur Rahman ("Rahman") are parties, except for an appeal from the present order; and (d) that he pay costs of the motions to the estate on a full indemnity basis.

Issues:

(1) Should the motion judge's order refusing to pass accounts at this time be overruled?

(2) Is the finding that Dorino is in contempt of court supported in the record?

(3) Should the contempt order be set aside because Dorino was not personally served with the contempt cross-motion?

(4)(a) Did the motion judge err in imposing a fine of $10,000 payable to the estate as opposed to the province of Ontario?

(4)(b) Should the motion judge's order imposing a $10,000 fine against Dorino be set aside?

(5) Is the motion judge's order prohibiting Dorino from taking any further steps in the proceeding or in any proceedings to which Fermino or Rahman are parties (except for an appeal from his order) too broad?

Holding:

The appeal was allowed in part and neither party was awarded costs of the appeal.

Reasoning

(1) No. The motion judge's exercise of discretion in refusing to order the passing of accounts should not be interfered with, as he had two reasonable bases for this order. First, the trustees could not pass the final accounts at that stage because there are still significant debts owing to the estate, and the estate also continued to incur legal costs given the ongoing legal battles between the parties. Second, it had been repeatedly held by several different Superior Court judges that Welland was the appropriate venue for dealing with matters relating to the estate. Therefore, Dorino's motion to have a passing of accounts held in Brampton was inappropriate and had already been litigated repeatedly.

(2) Yes. Even if Dorino's conduct cannot be characterized as a breach of a court order, the motion judge was correct in resorting to the common law power to commit him for contempt in the circumstances. Specifically, Dorino's conduct constituted an act done that was intended to, or was likely to, interfere with or obstruct the fair administration of justice. In the circumstances of this case, Dorino already knew based on three previous court orders that Welland was the appropriate venue for the passing of accounts, but he still brought another motion to conduct a passing of accounts in Brampton. Furthermore, his actions were vindictive as he intended to harass the opposing beneficiaries represented by Fermino, and he did so even though he was already warned in open court that he could face imprisonment if he brought another motion on this issue.

(3) No. Even though the respondents failed to serve Dorino personally with their motion materials in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, the purpose of personal service has been met in this case and there has been no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. Specifically, Dorino had full knowledge of the cross-motion brought by the respondents to hold him in contempt of court, as he filed an affidavit in response to Fermino's affidavit on this issue. Furthermore, he personally attended the motion and had an opportunity to address the contempt motion, but failed to make any submissions. In sum, the proceedings leading up to the contempt finding, including a warning in open court that he risked imprisonment if he brought another motion to pass accounts, afforded Dorino adequate procedural fairness and did not deprive him of a fair hearing.

(4)(a) Yes. The case of SNC-Lavalin Profac Inc. v. Sankar, 2009 ONCA 97, demonstrates that a fine imposed for civil contempt of court ought not to be payable to a party in the action but, rather, to the Provincial Treasurer.

(4)(b) Yes. A fine was not necessary in this case to meet the goals of deterrence and the need to stress the importance of respect for the court's process. The sentence of three days' imprisonment was more than sufficient to ensure that Dorino respects the court's process, and a fine acted as a double sanction and was unnecessary.

(5) Yes. The scope of the motion judge's order goes beyond what is reasonably necessary and constitutes an error in principle. The order constitutes an absolute prohibition on Dorino's ability to have any further involvement in this estate proceeding, which is too broad, and should be amended to allow him involvement if the court grants him leave.

Tags:

Law of Estates, Estate Litigation, Civil Contempt, Fines, Passing of Accounts, Proper Venue, Personal Service, Rules of Civil Procedure , Rules 2.03, 60.11

Coady v Barrie, 2014 ONCA 751

[Juriansz, Rouleau and van Rensburg JJ.A.]

Counsel:
M. Coady, acting in person
J.J. Cardill, for the respondents

Keywords:

Law of Estates, Estate Trustee

Facts:

This was an appeal from the judgment of Justice Brian W. Abrams of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 6, 2014.

Holding:

Appeal allowed in part.

Reasoning:

The parties agreed the appeal should be allowed in part. Neither the motion judge's finding that there was no bequest to the appellant of any interest in the cottage, nor his dismissal of the appellant's claim for damages should be dismissed. The motion judge erred in leaving the estate in limbo. Upon noting the respondents were prepared to renounce being trustees of the estate, the motion judge should have made an order removing them and appointing the appellant. The Court could not make an order as to the appellant's entitlement to the farm property as it did not know all the circumstances. The respondents were ordered to pass accounts and to cooperate in transferring responsibility for the estate to the appellant.

Costs of the motion of $12,500 were awarded to the respondent. No costs were awarded on the appeal.

Tags:

Law of Estates, Estate Trustee

Hoffman v. Subject (Subject Woodwork & Trim), 2014 ONCA 750

[Juriansz, Rouleau and van Rensburg JJ.A.]

Counsel:
J.K. Postnikoff, for the appellant
R. Subject, acting in person

Keywords:

Contract Law, Breach of Contract, Home Renovations, Proof of Damages, Monetary Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, Courts of Justice Act, ss. 19(1.2)(a)

Facts (Note: As this appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction, the underlying facts and issues were derived from the lower court decision):
The plaintiff wanted to renovate her kitchen. She had heard good things from a co-worker about the defendant's work, and the two of them met. They cobbled together a series of contracts over the course of the project. These contracts are unclear and reflected, to limited degrees, changes in the scope of the work as the project evolved. Adding to the confusion were a number of unwritten agreements that involved some of the work being undertaken by the plaintiff and other sub-contractors. Both sides acknowledged that the written agreements did not contain all of the items at issue.

The plaintiff's complaints were numerous. They were:

1) the floor being 'out of level';

2) related and separate problems with the kitchen cabinets;

3) a lack of structural support in the roof/ceiling; and

4) ventilation and barrier issues in the ceiling.

The lower court found that in the absence of being able to rescind the contract, the plaintiff would be held to the strict proof of her damages. A plaintiff is not entitled to a judgment for the payment of money unless he or she has proven all of the three following elements:

1) liability (in contract, or tort, or both);

2) the existence of damages;

3) the cost of repairing or undoing those damages (quantum).

The plaintiff in this case, with one exception, had only proven the first two elements of her claim with regard to some of the supplies and work agreed upon. Those two elements, without the third, were inadequate to entitle her to a judgment requiring the defendant to pay her money. It is inadequate to simply say that she was quoted "approximately $56,000.00" to rectify the deficiencies. The plaintiff did not put into evidence that estimate or those estimates leading to that number, nor did she call the the trades who had provided those estimates. She did not break the figure down into its materials and services components, nor indicate whether any of the originally supplied materials were to be reused or, if not, why not.

Issue(s):

Did the Superior Court Judge err in not awarding the plaintiff damages given the lack of evidence in support?

Held:

Appeal is quashed.

Reasoning:

Subsection 19(1.2)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act applies ($50,000 floor for appeals to be eligible to go to the Court of Appeal) and this court is without jurisdiction.

Tags:

Contract Law, Breach of Contract, Home Renovations, Proof of Damages, Monetary Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, Courts of Justice Act, ss. 19(1.2)(a)

Mikitchook v. John, 2014 ONCA 729

[Laskin, Gillese and Pardu JJ.A.]

Counsel:
No one appearing for the appellant
No one appearing for the respondent

Keywords:

Costs, Leave to Appeal, Non-Attendance

Facts:

This matter is an appeal from the order of Justice John R. Sproat of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 14, 2014.

Holding:

Leave to appeal costs is refused.

Reasoning:

Neither party appeared. There is no basis to interfere with the costs award.

Tags:

Costs, Leave to Appeal, Non-Attendance

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
John Polyzogopoulos
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

    Disclaimer

    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

    Registration

    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

    Cookies

    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

    Links

    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

    Mail-A-Friend

    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

    Emails

    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .

    Security

    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

    By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions