Alisha Burby

The plaintiff sought injunctive relief against two corporate defendants and their individual owners for alleged breaches of franchise agreements, including failure to purchase specified ingredients, pay royalties, and operating a substantially similar restaurant post-termination.

The defendants did not appear, and a transfer motion was pending in Ottawa.

The court identified deficiencies in the plaintiff's record, specifically regarding the Nepean Franchise Agreement's expiry date and the lack of definition or case law for "substantially similar" in the Elgin Franchise Agreement.

Consequently, the motion was adjourned to allow the plaintiff to provide supplementary materials and to await the outcome of the defendants' transfer motion.

The plaintiffs sued their former lawyers for professional negligence and breach of contract arising from their representation in an underlying employment and corporate dispute.

The defendant lawyers brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claims.

The court granted the motions, finding no genuine issue for trial because the plaintiffs failed to adduce expert evidence on the standard of care, the evidence showed the plaintiffs were advised of the litigation risks, and there was no evidence that the lawyers' conduct caused the plaintiffs' alleged damages.