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.