Daniel Perlin

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant, a former business owner, from competing with their vehicle leasing business and to compel the transfer of phone numbers and production of records, following a share purchase agreement.

The plaintiffs had ceased installment payments to the defendant, alleging misrepresentation and breach of restrictive covenants.

The court dismissed the main injunction for non-competition, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case, primarily because the restrictive covenants were not in force while the purchaser was in default of payment obligations.

The court also dismissed the requests for phone number transfer and production of records as premature or not contractually required.

A minor injunction restraining the defendant from holding himself out as a representative of the business was granted as it was unopposed.

The appellant purchased a home constructed by the respondent in 1997.

Mould was discovered in 2002 due to faulty construction and water leakage.

The mould was remedied and the house was sold without loss in value.

The appellant claimed damages for psychological and emotional injuries and out-of-pocket expenses.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the psychological injuries were too remote and not reasonably foreseeable.

The appellant appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in dismissing the claims for psychological and emotional injuries and that the contractual warranty limitations were irrelevant to the negligence claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the motion judge properly applied the test from Mustapha v. Culligan and correctly concluded that a person of ordinary fortitude would not have suffered the serious psychiatric injury claimed in these circumstances.

The defendant builder brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from mould discovered in a home purchased in 1997.

The plaintiff claimed over $6 million for physical, emotional, and financial injuries.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's psychiatric injuries were not reasonably foreseeable to a person of ordinary fortitude, and that there was insufficient evidence to prove the mould caused his physical injuries or financial losses.

The action was dismissed with costs.