A. Zeilikman

The plaintiff sought an interim injunction against former employees and their new competing business, alleging breach of a confidentiality and non-solicitation agreement.

The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case of breach, but dismissed the motion because the plaintiff failed to show it would suffer irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages.

At a case conference, the parties sought directions after their damages experts met ('hot tubbed') and the plaintiffs' expert wished to revise his report based on concessions made.

The defendants opposed, arguing the plaintiffs should bring a formal motion to allow pre-trial cross-examination.

The court held that requiring a formal motion for this procedural issue was inefficient and disproportionate under the Hryniak principles.

Pursuant to Rule 50.13(6), the court granted the plaintiffs leave to deliver an amended expert report without a motion.

The defendants moved to stay an Ontario action alleging breach of contract and misrepresentation arising from an agreement to establish a Toronto accounting business operation.

Applying the forum non conveniens framework, the court held that British Columbia was the clearly more appropriate forum given the parallel action already commenced there, the risk of conflicting judgments, and a non-exclusive forum selection clause consenting to British Columbia jurisdiction for disputes under the agreement.

Although the parties and witnesses were divided between Ontario and British Columbia, the need for a single proceeding to resolve identical factual issues outweighed those considerations.

The Ontario action was stayed and the defendants received partial indemnity costs.