1) During the pandemic of 2020, the government imposed a stay at home order requiring everyone to stay at home except for essential trips

Subject:ManagementPrice:3.87 Bought7

Share With

1) During the pandemic of 2020, the government imposed a stay at home order requiring everyone to stay at home except for essential trips. Brad operated a small ice cream and candy shop in Niagara­ on-the-Lake. Once the order was issued he had virtually no customers since no tourists could come to the Town. At the end of the first month he told his landlord, Patrick, that he would likely need to declare bankruptcy because he could not pay the rent. Patrick encouraged him to stay and said that he would reduce the rent from $8,000.00 to $2,000.00 per m.onth to help him out. Brad paid Patrick $2,000.00 and with loans from family members managed to do so each  month.

In the seventh month the pandemic was declared to be over and the stay at home order was rescinded. Brad went to Patrick's office with a big sm i le and gave him a cheque for $8,000.00. Patrick said "Where is the $36,000.00 for the other 6 months"? Brad was surprised and said "That rent was forgiven because of the pandemic". Patrick replied "Of course .not, we still have a valid lease that requires payments of $8,000.00 per month. You still owe me the rent". Brad claims that he would have closed the store and declared bankruptcy 6 months earlier if Patrick had not promised to reduce the rent. He commences an action to enforce Patrick's promises.

Required: Discuss the legal issues that will be raised by the parties with reference to the applicable principles. What is the likely  result?

2) Patrick, a lawyer, was hired by Book LLP, a firm of lawyers in downtown Toronto. Patrick worked with the firm for 15 years and acquired an expert knowledge of tax law and made several connections with prominent accounting firms that referred work to Book LLP. Patrick worked almost entirely in the offices of the firm, the partners handled most negotiations with the firm's clients and referred the work to Patrick.

Patrick's contract of employment stated that for a period of two (2) years after the termination of his employment "the employee will not engage in the professional practice of tax law either alone or in association with or as an employee of any person or firm within Metropolitan Toronto and will not

accept work from any existing client of the firm or any referrals from any accountant who provided services to the firm's clients."

Within a few days of terminating his employment with Book LLP, Patrick advised the fmn's partners that he considered the restrictive covenant illegal and unenforceable and that he intended to open his own office as a tax lawyer within North York, part of Metropolitan Toronto, but which was 10 kilometres from the offices of Book LLP. Book LLP then sued Patrick to obtain an injunction to restrain him from breaking the contract and opening the office.

Required: Identify the legal issues and state the principles that would affect the decision. Is there any additional information which would be relevant to your assessment of this case? What is the likely outcome of the application?