Barry H. Bresner

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from soliciting customers and making defamatory statements.

The parties agreed to adjourn the main motion, but the court had to decide a jurisdiction challenge and a request for an interim injunction.

The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction, as the exclusive forum clause in the parties' recent Termination Agreement superseded the Quebec forum clause in their earlier Dealership Agreement.

However, the court denied the interim injunction, finding that the plaintiffs' year-long delay in bringing the motion undermined their claim of irreparable harm pending the return of the main motion.

The court issued a supplementary costs endorsement regarding specific disbursements claimed by the defendants, Co-operators.

After receiving an explanatory letter from the defendants' counsel and no response from the plaintiffs, the court found the disbursements for photocopies, binding, scanning, and laser printing to be reasonable.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants $11,406.37 for these disbursements.

The defendants sought costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action.

Vancity claimed substantial indemnity costs based on a Rule 49.10 offer to settle.

The court held that Rule 49.10 does not apply where an action is dismissed, and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the defendants' claimed hours were excessive, noting the plaintiffs failed to produce their own bill of costs for comparison.

The court fixed Vancity's fees at $200,000 and Co-operators' fees at $130,000, plus HST and allowable disbursements.

The plaintiff insurance brokerage sought an interim interlocutory injunction restraining former employee producers and their new employer from soliciting or dealing with certain customers pending a full motion hearing.

The court applied the three‑part test from RJR–MacDonald for interlocutory injunctions.

While there appeared to be a strong prima facie case against one former employee, the evidence against the others was largely speculative, and the alleged harm was found to be quantifiable through damages given the nature of the brokerage business.

Considering the balance of convenience, delay by the plaintiff, and the availability of undertakings proposed by the defendants, the court declined to grant the requested interim injunction and instead accepted undertakings pending the return of the motion.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to adjourn an eight‑week civil trial scheduled on the running list while appeals were pending concerning a refusal to amend the statement of claim and to admit late expert valuation reports.

The defendants opposed the adjournment, arguing the appeals would not materially affect the trial and proposing procedural alternatives such as hearing evidence and awaiting appellate outcomes or bifurcating liability and damages.

Applying the principles governing adjournments, including the objective of deciding matters on their substantive merits and considerations of prejudice and fairness, the court found the pending appeals could significantly affect the pleadings and expert evidence at trial.

The court concluded that proceeding before those issues were resolved risked inefficient and potentially unfair proceedings.

The trial was therefore adjourned pending the appellate process.

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim to add a claim in nuisance against a defendant related to environmental contamination of a former foundry property, and to increase damages claimed.

They also sought leave to file late expert appraisal reports relating to alleged “stigma damages.” The court held that the proposed nuisance claim was not legally tenable because the alleged contamination originated on the plaintiffs’ own property and was caused by prior operators, not the defendant’s conduct.

The court further found that permitting the late expert reports would cause undue delay and prejudice, as the reports were served more than two years after the pre-trial conference and shortly before a lengthy scheduled trial.

Leave to amend the pleadings to add the nuisance claim and to file the expert reports was denied, although minor amendments to increase the damages amounts were granted on consent.