Anthony Prenol

The plaintiff brought a motion to continue an interim interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from shutting down its website pending trial over a software license fee dispute.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm because damages would be an adequate remedy.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the defendants, as an injunction would be akin to ordering specific performance of a contract for personal services.

The motion was dismissed, but the court extended the interim injunction for six months on terms to allow the plaintiff time to find replacement software.

The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to prevent the defendants from shutting down its website pending an interlocutory injunction hearing.

The parties had a software licensing agreement and disputed the monthly fees owed.

The court applied the RJR-McDonald test, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the agreement's terms, irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business if the website was shut down, and the balance of convenience favouring the plaintiff.

The court granted the interim injunction but ordered the plaintiff to continue paying the disputed higher monthly fee to maintain the status quo until the interlocutory hearing.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs’ statement of claim or alternatively for further particulars.

The claim alleged copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, interference with contractual relations, unjust enrichment, and misappropriation of goodwill relating to software and a business method used in contact centre management.

The court held that the pleading of copyright infringement was deficient because it failed to plead the chain of title and did not clearly identify the copyrighted works or the assignment or grant of rights required under the Copyright Act.

That portion of the claim was struck with leave to amend.

The remaining causes of action were sufficiently pleaded and the request for further particulars was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal in a copyright infringement action, the Court of Appeal received written submissions to fix the respondents' costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court declined to refer the costs for assessment, finding it was better positioned to fix them given its knowledge of the complex appeal.

The court applied the new costs rules and Tariff A grid, rejecting the respondents' request to apply the former solicitor and client scale.

After adjusting hourly rates, reducing preparation hours, and setting off the appellant's costs for interlocutory proceedings, the court fixed the respondents' costs at $536,464.42.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its copyright infringement action and the assessment of damages awarded to the respondents under an undertaking given for an interlocutory injunction.

The appellant alleged the respondents' computer program infringed its copyright.

The trial judge found no copying of protectable expression, noting that similarities were dictated by functional considerations or were not protectable by copyright.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on copyright infringement, including the application of the idea/expression dichotomy and the merger doctrine.

The Court also upheld the damages award of over $6.8 million for losses caused by the interlocutory injunction, finding the damages were reasonably foreseeable and caused by the injunction.

The appeal was dismissed.