Adrienne L. Boudreau

The plaintiffs and defendants are neighbours involved in a protracted dispute.

The plaintiffs alleged assault, trespass, defamation, nuisance, intrusion upon seclusion, and intentional infliction of mental distress.

The court found that the defendant, Mr. Spence, assaulted Mr. Pang by intentionally pushing a lawn mower towards him, and defamed both plaintiffs by making disparaging remarks to another neighbour.

The court awarded $40,000 in general damages and $10,000 in punitive damages for the assault, and $2,500 to each plaintiff for defamation.

The remaining claims, including those against Ms. Gagne, were dismissed, as was the request for a permanent injunction.

The plaintiff, Kalbow Restorations Inc., sought an urgent interlocutory injunction against its franchisor, Goodbye Graffiti Inc., and related parties, alleging improper termination of their franchise agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Kalbow had committed incurable material defaults under the agreement by using unauthorized chemicals and suppliers, and had not demonstrated a strong prima facie case or a serious issue to be tried.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis.

This is a costs endorsement following a grouped set of appeals and cross-appeals where all parties were entirely unsuccessful.

The court declined to award costs, rejecting the franchisor parties' argument to parse success across various elements of the appeals and cross-appeals.

The court found it inappropriate to do so, concluding that since no party achieved any degree of success, no costs should be awarded.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard appeals and a cross-appeal concerning a franchise dispute under the Arthur Wishart Act.

Franchisees Versatile Holdings Inc. and Everest Group Inc. appealed the dismissal of their rescission actions, arguing errors in the burden of proof for disclosure deficiencies and the determination of franchisor's associates.

The franchisor, Paramount Franchise Group Inc., cross-appealed the trial judge's finding that Premium Host Inc. was entitled to statutory compensation, challenging disclosure exemptions, the effect of contract termination on rescission rights, material omission of financial statements, and the finding that Holly Graham and Paramount Leasing were franchisor's associates.

The Court dismissed all appeals and the cross-appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings on the burden of proof for rescission, the non-applicability of disclosure exemptions, the right to rescind despite prior termination for breach, the materiality of the financial omission, and the determination of franchisor's associates.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a former franchisee, citing the plaintiff's insufficient assets.

The plaintiff conceded its lack of assets but argued against the order, claiming impecuniosity and a meritorious case.

The court found the plaintiff failed to prove impecuniosity due to insufficient disclosure of shareholder assets and lack of inquiry into borrowing.

While acknowledging the defendants' delay in bringing the motion, the court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs on a partial indemnity scale, significantly reducing the amount sought to reflect the delay and future litigation steps.

The plaintiff, Tripsetter Inc., brought a motion seeking leave to add Tweed Inc. and Jurgen Schreiber as defendants, alleging they are "franchisor's associates" under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

The proposed defendants objected, arguing the claim was out of time due to a lack of notice of rescission and that the proposed pleading failed to establish the necessary control for a franchisor's associate.

The court found that the Act does not require notice of rescission to be given to an alleged franchisor's associate for a claim for damages to proceed.

It also determined that the limitation period argument was not clear-cut and could be argued at trial, as the plaintiff's knowledge of Tweed's full involvement only came to light during discovery.

The court found the proposed pleading, including the "de facto franchisor" concept, to be sufficient for the purpose of a pleadings amendment motion, noting that amendments are to be read generously.

This is a costs decision following a judgment in a complex multi-party litigation involving franchise disputes.

The court determined the quantum and scale of costs for various successful and unsuccessful claims and counterclaims.

Premium Host Inc. was awarded partial indemnity costs against Paramount Franchise Group Inc. and related entities.

Versatile Holdings Inc. and Everest Group Inc., whose claims were dismissed, were ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to the Paramount group.

The court declined to award elevated costs, reduced the defendants' claimed costs due to duplication and litigation conduct, and clarified the liability of individual guarantors for corporate litigation costs, holding them jointly and severally liable only for costs related to counterclaims where they were proper parties.

The plaintiff, Tripsetter Inc., brought a motion seeking a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendants, 2161907 Alberta Ltd., Canopy Growth Corporation, and Justin Farbstein, and answers to undertakings and a refusal.

The core dispute concerned whether the parties' relationship was a franchise or a license, impacting disclosure obligations under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The court ordered the production of a Franchise Disclosure Document and a Financial Projections Document, finding them relevant to the nature of the relationship and the defendants' disclosure exemption arguments.

However, the plaintiff's general request for a further affidavit of documents and its requests regarding the undertakings and refusal were dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff's representative to reattend discovery and answer numerous refused questions across four categories.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing the questions were irrelevant or privileged.

The court largely upheld the plaintiff's refusals, finding most questions irrelevant to the core issues of the case, such as the nature of the business relationship (franchise vs. license) or the plaintiff's subjective understanding of legal requirements.

Only one minor question regarding inventory was ordered to be answered.

Three franchisees (Versatile, Everest, and Premium Host) sought to rescind their franchise agreements with Paramount Fine Foods under the Arthur Wishart Act, alleging the franchisor failed to provide compliant disclosure documents.

The court found that Paramount was not exempt from its disclosure obligations.

However, Versatile and Everest failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the disclosure documents they received were fatally flawed, so their rescission claims were dismissed.

Premium Host successfully established that Paramount failed to disclose material financial information in a single document, rendering its disclosure fatally flawed.

Premium Host's rescission was deemed valid, and it was awarded statutory compensation against the franchisor and its associates, including Paramount Leasing and the Manager of Franchising.

The appellants, several Turtle Jack's restaurant franchisees, appealed a motion judge's order that set aside an Associate Judge's decision to add a new defendant (11554891 Canada Inc.) and allow amendments to their statement of claim regarding supplier contributions to an advertising fund.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that adding the new party and allowing the amendments would constitute an abuse of process due to inordinate delay, the dubious nature of the claims, and the fact that the amendments introduced new, statute-barred claims.

The court also upheld the costs award against the appellants.

The applicants were successful in an application to disqualify an arbitrator and sought partial indemnity costs of $21,411.22.

The respondents argued the amount was too high and proposed $8,761.96, noting the brief hearing.

The court found the applicants' proposed amount was within the norm for a short but legally significant application.

The court exercised its discretion to award the applicants costs in the rounded amount of $21,400, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The appellant franchisors appealed a decision allowing the respondent franchisees to rescind their franchise agreement due to a materially deficient franchise disclosure document (FDD).

The appellants argued the application judge erred by applying an objective test rather than requiring subjective evidence that the deficiencies impaired the franchisees' ability to make an informed decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the test for rescission under s. 6(2) of the Arthur Wishart Act is objective.

The court upheld the findings that the failure to include financial statement notes, head lease details, and the fact that this was the first non-mall location constituted material non-disclosure.

The applicants sought the appointment of a new arbitrator for a second arbitration concerning franchise agreements, while the respondents sought to re-appoint the arbitrator from the first arbitration.

The applicants objected on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the arbitrator had made adverse credibility findings against them in the first proceeding.

The respondents argued the original arbitrator was best positioned to determine if the new claims were res judicata.

The court declined to appoint the original arbitrator, finding that relying on his private notes from the first arbitration would violate deliberative secrecy and that the interpretation of his prior award must be done objectively by a new decision-maker.

The court appointed a retired judge as the new arbitrator.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants' costs were excessive and that their conduct warranted a denial of costs.

The court found that while the plaintiff's motion was ill-conceived, its conduct was not reprehensible enough to justify elevated costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs in the amount of $50,995.12.

The plaintiff, Lightbox Enterprises Ltd., moved for interlocutory injunctive orders against the defendant, 2708227 Ontario Inc., concerning their business relationship involving retail cannabis stores.

Lightbox alleged breach of license and service agreements and misuse of confidential information and trademarks ("Dutch Love""Hobo Cannabis"). 2708227 Ontario Inc. counter-claimed, asserting the relationship was a franchise governed by the Arthur Wishart Act and that Lightbox failed to provide disclosure, entitling 2708227 Ontario Inc. to rescind the agreements.

The court dismissed Lightbox's motion for injunctive relief, finding no contractual basis for the primary relief sought, insufficient evidence to establish a strong prima facie case for breach of confidence, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored the defendant.

Following a successful appeal setting aside a Master's order that amended pleadings and added a defendant, the successful appellants sought costs.

The court found the amounts sought excessive because the appellants were unsuccessful on several grounds of appeal and the costs of the underlying motion were fixed at $5,000.

The court awarded the TRG defendants $13,000 and the added defendant $12,000, inclusive of the underlying motion costs.

Following a motion where the defendants were largely unsuccessful in seeking further particulars and striking paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim, the plaintiff sought costs of $11,923.04.

The court found the plaintiff was substantially successful and the defendants' motion was largely unnecessary.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $8,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

The defendants appealed a Master's order that granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim to add new defendants and new claims regarding supplier contributions to an advertising fund, and ordered related documentary production.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal in part.

The court found that adding a new corporate defendant on the eve of trial constituted an abuse of process given the extensive delays in the nine-year-old franchise dispute.

The court also held that the Master erred in allowing the amendments regarding supplier contributions, as they constituted a new cause of action that was statute-barred and not legally tenable under the clear terms of the franchise agreements.

The Master's orders adding the new party and allowing the supplier contribution amendments were set aside.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against three corporate plaintiffs (former franchisees) in three related actions.

The plaintiffs argued they were impecunious and that an order would be unjust due to the defendants' delay, the existence of counterclaims, and the nature of franchise litigation.

The court found that the plaintiffs were not impecunious because their shareholders had the ability to fund the litigation.

Applying a holistic approach, the court determined it was just to order security for costs, but reduced the quantum to reflect the defendants' delay and the overlapping counterclaims.