Charlie Chang
Charlie is a member of the Litigation Group, the Construction Law Group and the Franchise Litigation Team. He has represented a wide range of clients in the resolution of commercial, construction, real estate, franchise and transportation law disputes through both litigation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods.
Charlie has appeared at every level of court in Ontario, acting as trial counsel in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and as appellate counsel before the Divisional Court of Ontario and the Court of Appeal of Ontario, and before various administrative tribunals in Ontario.
Charlie is also a regular speaker and panellist at the Ontario Trucking Association’s annual conferences and legal education seminars, providing legal information and updates to commercial truck transportation companies, independent owner/operators, load brokers and freight forwarding, warehousing and logistics companies.
Education:
McGill University (B.A.Hons., 1997)University of Western Ontario (LL.B., 2000)
Professional Associations:
Law Society of Upper Canada, Canadian Bar Association, Ontario Bar Association, Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, Korean Canadian Lawyers Association, Peel Law Association.Cases of Note:
In his second year of practice, Charlie successfully argued before the Court of Appeal for Ontario in favour of upholding a judgment granted in accordance with a settlement entered into by the parties to the litigation (Conto et al. v. Driscoll, [2003] O.J. No. 3548).In November 2003, Charlie successfully argued issues in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice relating to an action under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 involving a motion for a stay of proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1991 (Cox et al. v. Action International Canada Inc. et al. (4 December 2004) Brampton CV-04-3206-00 (Ont.S.C.J.)
In May 2004, Charlie appeared as co-counsel before the Court of Appeal for Ontario and successfully argued in favour of preserving the trust claims of various commercial transportation carriers in the bankruptcy of one of North America’s largest trucking conglomerates (GMAC Commercial Credit Corporation - Canada v. TCT Logistics Inc. et al. (2005), 74 O.R. (3d) 382; (2005), 7 C.B.R. (5th) 202).
In November 2004, Charlie successfully argued a motion for costs against a solicitor personally who had forged her client’s signature on two affidavits filed with the Court in a matrimonial proceeding (Weening v. Weening, [2004] O.J. No. 4977). The award was one of the largest reported costs orders made against a solicitor personally in Ontario.
In October 2007, Charlie appeared before the Divisional Court of Ontario on behalf of G&S Transport, a "for-hire" truck transport carrier, and successfully appealed the lower court's decision to award judgment against G&S for lease payments in respect of a trailer leased by a co-defendant, Bulk Transfer Station. The carrier, G&S, was not a party to the trailer lease agreement between the plaintiff leasing company and Bulk Transfer Station. The trial judge awarded judgment against G&S on the basis that the carrier maintained non-owned trailer insurance coverage, which would have included the plaintiff's trailer when G&S was hauling it, and that there was a "three-way dealing" between the plaintiff leasing company, the lessee, Bulk Transfer Station, and G&S. The Divisional Court disagreed with the trial judge and set aside the judgment against G&S (Location Citernes Experts Inc. v. G&S Transport (2007), 161 A.C.W.S. (3d) 241; [2007] O.J. No. 4042).