3 total
Default judgment granted for unpaid legal fees; prejudgment interest reduced due to undefined prime rate.
The plaintiff law firm brought an in-writing motion for default judgment against the defendant for unpaid legal fees totaling $265,983.49.
The defendant was noted in default and deemed to admit the allegations in the Statement of Claim.
The court granted judgment for the principal amount but declined to award the requested prejudgment interest of 'prime + 2%' because the 'rate of prime' was undefined.
Instead, the court calculated prejudgment interest at 2% per year from 30 days after each invoice date, totaling $14,929.78.
Costs were fixed at $5,395.75 on a partial indemnity scale, and post-judgment interest was set at 4% pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act.
Motion for interlocutory injunction against former employee dismissed for failing to establish strong prima facie case or irreparable harm.
The plaintiff, Aware Ads Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction against its former employee, Greg Walker, to prevent him from working for a competitor, despite his non-competition and non-solicitation clauses having expired.
The plaintiff alleged breach of confidence, breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy.
The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case on any of its causes of action, failed to prove irreparable harm, and found the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.
The court also ruled that a transcript and audio recording of a conversation were inadmissible due to lack of proper authentication.
The motion for an injunction was dismissed.
Interim injunction and Mareva injunction denied due to speculative evidence of former employees' breach of restrictive covenants.
The plaintiff, an internet marketing company, brought an urgent motion for an interim injunction, a Mareva injunction, and a Certificate of Pending Litigation against two former employees and a related corporation.
The plaintiff alleged the former employees breached non-competition and non-solicitation clauses by operating a competing business and misappropriating confidential information.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm, as the evidence connecting the defendants to the competing business was largely circumstantial and speculative.
The requests for asset-freezing relief and a Certificate of Pending Litigation were also dismissed due to insufficient evidence of asset dissipation or illicit funding.
