Brent Craswell

The plaintiffs, a franchisor group ("Tiny Hoppers"), brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of $500,000 and absolution from further payments, alleging the defendants (franchisees, "Dino & Kidz") breached a settlement agreement by failing to disassociate from the brand and making defamatory statements.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim and payment of $224,000, the balance owing under the settlement.

The court found that the defendants had taken reasonable steps to disassociate themselves and had not made defamatory or disparaging statements.

Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion was dismissed, and the defendants' counterclaim for the outstanding payment was granted.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for an injunction, the court determined the costs of the motion.

The plaintiff argued costs should be in the cause, while the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs payable forthwith.

The court applied the presumptive 'pay as you go' rule under Rule 57.03, finding no reason to depart from it.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the motion was not frivolous or an abuse of process.

Partial indemnity costs totaling $44,000 were awarded to the various defendants, with payment extended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent former employees and their new competing businesses from soliciting its customers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, as the non-competition agreements were either expired or likely unenforceable.

Furthermore, the court found no irreparable harm, concluding that damages would be an adequate remedy if the plaintiff ultimately succeeded at trial.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' defamation and unjust enrichment action after a five-day trial, the successful defendant sought costs.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs to the date of his settlement offers and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court found that the defendant's offers did not trigger substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49 and the plaintiffs' conduct did not warrant a punitive costs award.

The court awarded the defendant costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amount at $59,940.78 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order to compel the defendant municipality to issue adult entertainment establishment licenses, asserting a binding settlement agreement.

The municipality argued the settlement was not enforceable without a council resolution and that the plaintiff had lost its legal non-conforming use rights due to a 5.5-year cessation of operations.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the settlement agreement was not binding on the Town without formal adoption by a by-law or resolution of council, and that any legal non-conforming use rights under the zoning by-law had been extinguished due to the prolonged discontinuance of operations.

The plaintiff brought a motion for refusals against the defendants, seeking answers and productions refused during 2012 examinations for discovery.

The defendants resisted, arguing the motion was brought past a court-ordered deadline of November 30, 2015, and that the information sought was irrelevant or res judicata.

The court found the motion was barred due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with the firm timetable set by Master Roger, which required all refusals motions to be filed by the specified deadline.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment against the defendants, a construction company and its principals, seeking a refund of $76,228.02 based on an account statement provided by the defendants.

The defendants argued the statement was a settlement offer subject to privilege and did not constitute an admission.

The court found the account statement to be an admission and not subject to settlement privilege, as there was no clear intent to settle or "without prejudice" designation.

Applying the Hryniak v. Mauldin test, the court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs for the requested amount, plus costs.

The applicant sought declaratory orders against his neighbours regarding the maintenance of an artificially raised property grade and an encroaching fence.

The court refused to grant the declarations, finding that they would serve no practical purpose as they merely repeated existing law and legislation.

The request to relocate the fence was also dismissed as partially moot, given the respondents had already removed most of it and undertook to remove the remaining posts.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to examine two non-party witnesses and to amend the claim to remove one of the plaintiffs in his personal capacity.

The court dismissed the request to examine the non-parties, finding it premature as the plaintiffs had not yet exhausted the discovery process through a refusals motion.

The court granted the request to remove the individual plaintiff on terms, including that he pay $2,000 in costs to one of the defendants and remain liable for costs awarded against the unincorporated plaintiffs.