Byrdena MacNeil

The plaintiffs, purchasers of a dental clinic, sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce non-competition and non-licensing obligations against the defendants, the former clinic owner and his corporations.

The plaintiffs alleged breaches of a 15-kilometre non-competition clause and a five-year restriction on using the "Smile Stylist" brand name within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), stemming from the defendants opening a new clinic within the restricted zone and misusing the former clinic's website for marketing.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a strong prima facie case for breach of the non-competition and branding covenants, irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, and that the balance of convenience favored granting these injunctions.

However, the court denied the request for control over the "thesmilestylist.ca" domain and related accounts, as the licensing term had expired and the plaintiffs had rebranded, negating irreparable harm for that specific relief.

The plaintiff, a slip priority note holder, sued the defendant sailing club for breach of contract after the club unilaterally changed its summer dockage rates, eliminating a long-standing 20% rate differential for slip priority holders.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing no such agreement existed or was breached.

The court found a valid contract based on objective intent and conduct, including 40 years of consistent application of the 20% differential.

The court determined the club breached this agreement by unilaterally altering its terms and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ordering damages and specific performance of the original rate differential.

The applicant sought declarations that her property had no right-of-way or easement for the respondent's use of a driveway and water well, and an order prohibiting such use.

The respondent filed cross-applications claiming a right-of-way or ownership of the disputed land.

The court found that the driveway and water well were entirely on the applicant's property, and no express, prescriptive, or implied easements existed in favour of the respondent's property due to unity of ownership by a predecessor in title and lack of strict necessity.

The court dismissed the respondent's cross-applications and granted the applicant's application, subject to a six-month suspension of enforcement to allow the respondent to establish alternative access and water.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following the Applicant's successful motion for child and spousal support for 2019 and 2020.

The Applicant sought $11,256.21 in costs, while the Respondent proposed $3,500.00, arguing partial success on the underlying motion.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the Applicant presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party.

Considering factors such as the importance and complexity of the issues, the parties' behaviour, and the reasonableness and proportionality of the legal fees, the court awarded the Applicant fixed costs of $8,208.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable within 30 days.

The applicant sought to enforce an option to purchase agreement for a property or, alternatively, the return of a $25,000 down payment.

The respondent argued the option expired and the payment was forfeited.

The court found the option agreement had expired and was not renewed, and the respondent's failure to provide compliant rent receipts was not causally linked to the applicant's inability to secure financing.

However, the court granted relief from forfeiture for the $12,000 in monthly credits, finding it unconscionable for the respondent to retain this amount given it exceeded the contract's cap, but allowed the respondent to retain the initial $13,000 option fee.

The defendant, Trez MR Holdings (Ontario) Ltd., brought a motion for security for costs.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice, for the same reasons set out in a related proceeding (CV-21-943).

Given the divided success on the entirety of two motions, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs, resulting in no costs awarded.

The defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim, Trez MR Holdings (Ontario) Ltd. ("Trez"), brought a motion seeking leave to bring a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim, Probert Construction Inc. ("Probert"), in two related construction lien actions.

Trez argued there was good reason to believe Probert had insufficient assets in Ontario to cover costs, citing unpaid subcontractors and delays in prosecution.

Probert countered that it had ongoing projects and assets, and that the existence of liens alone was not proof of insufficiency.

The court found that Trez's evidence did not rise above mere speculation and failed to establish "good reason to believe" Probert had insufficient assets.

Consequently, leave to bring the motion for security for costs was refused, and the motion was dismissed.

No costs were awarded due to divided success on the overall motions (examination issues were resolved prior).

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a successful motion by the applicant for temporary exclusive decision-making authority and altered parenting time.

The applicant sought full recovery costs of $13,540.22, citing an unaccepted offer to settle and the respondent's alleged unreasonable conduct.

The respondent argued his actions were in good faith and cited limited financial means, proposing a reduced or deferred payment.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the applicant presumptively entitled to costs but reduced the award to $7,000, payable within 90 days, considering proportionality, reasonableness, and the respondent's financial circumstances.

The court declined to enforce the costs as support or allow extended monthly payments.

This decision addresses the costs of a summary judgment motion brought by the Plaintiff, Jackman Construction Limited, which was largely unsuccessful.

While the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, some ancillary procedural relief was granted.

The parties were unable to agree on costs.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the Defendants, Collin Lee Brown and Cristen Lee-Ann Brown, were presumptively entitled to costs as they successfully dismissed the primary motion.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no "improper conduct" by the Plaintiff under Rule 20.06.

Partial indemnity costs were fixed at $28,421.36, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendants.

The Plaintiff, Matbridge Investments Ltd., brought a motion seeking an order for the Defendants to answer undertakings regarding the production of lawyers' files and for partial summary judgment of $37,500 based on a promissory note.

The Defendants, Christopher Culligan and The Quiet Coach Inc., opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for leave to amend their statement of defence to plead equitable set-off.

The court dismissed the Plaintiff's motion regarding the undertakings, finding no agreement for the Defendants to bear the costs.

The court granted the Defendants' cross-motion to amend their statement of defence, finding the delay was not inordinate and the proposed equitable set-off defence was not statute-barred.

The court also dismissed the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the promissory note, concluding that the issue could not be readily bifurcated and involved genuine issues requiring a trial.

The applicant sought child and spousal support for 2019 and 2020.

The key issues were determining the respondent's income, specifically whether corporate amortization expenses and alleged undeclared cash income should be added back, and whether wages paid to the applicant by the respondent's company should be considered spousal support.

The court found that 50% of 2019 amortization and 100% of 2020 amortization should be added back to the respondent's income for support purposes, as they were deemed book entries not reflecting actual depreciation or replacement needs.

The court declined to impute additional cash income due to lack of evidence and also declined to re-categorize the applicant's 2019 wages as support payments.

Child and spousal support amounts were calculated based on the adjusted incomes.

The applicant sought to compel the respondent insurer to proceed with a statutory appraisal for property damage claims and to pay additional living expenses.

The court affirmed the mandatory nature of the appraisal process but ruled that the applicant's "Interim" Proof of Loss was insufficient for final appraisal, requiring a choice between proceeding with an estimated valuation or delaying until actual repair costs were known.

The court dismissed the claim for additional living expenses, finding no evidence the property was "unfit for occupancy" due to an insured occurrence, and denied the request to appoint an appraiser.

Claims for payment under the policy were stayed pending appraisal completion.