Camila Maldi

This decision concerns an urgent case conference in which the plaintiffs, One World Logistics Group Corp. and Makstrans Logistic Ltd., sought interim injunctive relief against the defendant, Maksim Sotiri, following his termination from employment.

The plaintiffs alleged breaches of non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality covenants.

The court declined to grant an interim order restraining competition, citing the breadth of the covenant and the compensability of damages.

Orders were made regarding confidentiality, provision of login codes, and a temporary restraint on further complaints to regulatory bodies pending a full hearing.

The matter was scheduled for a full injunction motion.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's negligence claim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff alleged the municipality negligently issued a building permit in 1981 without conservation authority approval, leading to foundation failure in 2017.

The court found the claim was discovered objectively by 2013 when the plaintiff obtained an engineering report identifying unsuitable fill, and that the 15-year ultimate limitation period had also expired.

The court rejected arguments that the limitation period was tolled by a municipal claims process or by fraudulent concealment, granting summary judgment and dismissing the action.

The applicant sought specific performance of an alleged agreement to purchase the respondents' shares in a corporation involved in the Thai medical cannabis industry.

The court found that the email correspondence between the parties constituted an agreement in principle, but not a binding contract, as essential terms regarding due diligence and disclosure remained unresolved.

However, the court found that a subsequent rights offering proposed by the respondents, which would have significantly diluted the applicant's minority shareholding at a below-market price, was oppressive.

The application for specific performance was dismissed, but the rights offering was permanently enjoined.

This is an appeal from a judgment granting partial summary judgment and dismissing a counterclaim.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred in hearing the partial summary judgment motion, in granting the judgment, in awarding duplicative compensation, and in appreciating fraudulent concealment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding errors in the motion judge's decision to hear the partial summary judgment, her findings of fact, or her awards of punitive damages and full indemnity costs, which were distinct from the denial of a success fee.

The claim regarding fraudulent concealment was also dismissed for lack of specificity.