Athanasios Makrinos

The plaintiff, Aware Ads Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction against its former employee, Greg Walker, to prevent him from working for a competitor, despite his non-competition and non-solicitation clauses having expired.

The plaintiff alleged breach of confidence, breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy.

The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case on any of its causes of action, failed to prove irreparable harm, and found the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.

The court also ruled that a transcript and audio recording of a conversation were inadmissible due to lack of proper authentication.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Hayley Middleton, brought a motion to amend her Statement of Claim in a wrongful dismissal action.

The proposed amendments included allegations that the defendant attempted to falsify an employment contract and employee file for litigation purposes, seeking increased aggravated and/or punitive damages.

The defendant opposed, arguing the claim was untenable and scandalous.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed amendment presented a tenable claim.

The judge reasoned that the alleged conduct could potentially qualify as post-termination conduct related to the manner of dismissal, which is compensable in damages, or, in rare circumstances, serious litigation misconduct that could attract damages, rather than solely costs.

The plaintiff, an internet marketing company, brought an urgent motion for an interim injunction, a Mareva injunction, and a Certificate of Pending Litigation against two former employees and a related corporation.

The plaintiff alleged the former employees breached non-competition and non-solicitation clauses by operating a competing business and misappropriating confidential information.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm, as the evidence connecting the defendants to the competing business was largely circumstantial and speculative.

The requests for asset-freezing relief and a Certificate of Pending Litigation were also dismissed due to insufficient evidence of asset dissipation or illicit funding.

The plaintiff, an aluminum scrap brokerage, sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain a former employee from competing against it.

The plaintiff alleged the employee breached fiduciary duties and a restrictive covenant in his employment agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case.

The employee was not a fiduciary because the plaintiff was not peculiarly vulnerable to him, as deals in the industry are driven by price rather than relationships.

Furthermore, the restrictive covenant was an overly broad and unenforceable non-competition clause.

The plaintiff also failed to prove irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the employee.

The Bondfield Group, a major construction company, sought CCAA protection due to insolvency, over $1 billion in active contracts, and over 200 lawsuits.

The application was unopposed and resulted from extensive stakeholder negotiations.

The court granted an initial order for CCAA protection, including a stay of proceedings, approval of a tailored $8 million Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) facility funded by Zurich Insurance, an Administration Charge for professional fees, and a Directors' Charge for $3 million (excluding John Aquino).

The court emphasized the public interest in completing critical infrastructure projects and the preference for CCAA over receivership to preserve enterprise value.