Brad Teplitsky

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment to enforce a promissory note executed in connection with an asset purchase agreement for a recycling business.

The defendant admitted signing the note and acknowledged the outstanding balance but argued that the plaintiffs had waived default, improperly seized collateral, and failed to account for the sale of secured assets.

The court held that no clear waiver or agreement to forbear from enforcing the note was established and that the defendant failed to produce evidence supporting allegations of improper seizure under the Personal Property Security Act.

However, due to ongoing litigation regarding the seizure and disposition of secured assets, the precise amount owing under the note remained uncertain.

Summary judgment on liability was granted, the defence was struck, and the quantum of the debt was ordered to be determined at trial together with the related injunction proceedings.

The moving party sought an order appointing a computer forensic expert to inspect the responding party’s computer systems to determine the authenticity of certain emails allegedly exchanged between employees.

The motion alleged a lack of transparency in the responding party’s investigation and requested inspection of servers and archived email systems.

The court accepted the responding party’s evidence that no trace of the emails existed in its live exchange system or archival vault and that prior internal and forensic reviews found no record of the communications.

Applying a threshold requirement that there be a real likelihood the emails once existed and were deleted, the court held the moving party’s request was based on speculation.

Given the intrusive nature of inspecting a competitor’s computer systems and the principle of proportionality in discovery, the court refused the requested order.

Following a prior decision granting declaratory relief for infringement under the Trade-Marks Act and Competition Act, the court addressed whether costs should be awarded before the quantification of damages on a reference.

The respondent argued that costs should be deferred until damages were determined in order to respect the principle of proportionality.

The court held that s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure confer discretion to award costs for a proceeding or a step in a proceeding even before damages are quantified.

Given the applicant’s substantial success on liability and the final nature of the declaratory relief, the court ordered that costs be payable forthwith on a partial indemnity basis, while allowing the respondent to make written submissions on the quantum of costs.

The defendant director brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing claims against him personally in a commercial dispute arising from a proposed hotel development joint venture.

The plaintiff alleged the director breached fiduciary duties and induced breach of contract and trust after removing the plaintiff from negotiations with a municipal authority.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring trial regarding the director’s personal liability.

Directors owe fiduciary duties to the corporation, not to third-party stakeholders, and the plaintiff failed to establish a fiduciary relationship or any trust asset arising from the letter of intent.

The court further held that the director’s actions were taken bona fide on behalf of the corporation and were protected by the Said v. Butt principle.

The applicant alleged that the respondent distributed a brochure containing false and misleading statements about the applicant’s water heater rental services.

The court considered whether the brochure breached s. 7(a), s. 22, and s. 53.2 of the Trade-Marks Act and s. 52 of the Competition Act by discrediting a competitor and depreciating the value of goodwill attached to registered trade-marks.

The court found the brochure contained inaccurate and misleading representations and improperly reproduced the applicant’s trade-mark and logo.

The court concluded the respondent’s conduct breached the Trade-Marks Act and the Competition Act.

A declaration of breach was issued, a permanent injunction granted restraining further distribution of the brochure, and a reference ordered to determine damages.