David Altshuller

The applicants were successful in an application to disqualify an arbitrator and sought partial indemnity costs of $21,411.22.

The respondents argued the amount was too high and proposed $8,761.96, noting the brief hearing.

The court found the applicants' proposed amount was within the norm for a short but legally significant application.

The court exercised its discretion to award the applicants costs in the rounded amount of $21,400, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The applicants sought the appointment of a new arbitrator for a second arbitration concerning franchise agreements, while the respondents sought to re-appoint the arbitrator from the first arbitration.

The applicants objected on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the arbitrator had made adverse credibility findings against them in the first proceeding.

The respondents argued the original arbitrator was best positioned to determine if the new claims were res judicata.

The court declined to appoint the original arbitrator, finding that relying on his private notes from the first arbitration would violate deliberative secrecy and that the interpretation of his prior award must be done objectively by a new decision-maker.

The court appointed a retired judge as the new arbitrator.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants' costs were excessive and that their conduct warranted a denial of costs.

The court found that while the plaintiff's motion was ill-conceived, its conduct was not reprehensible enough to justify elevated costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs in the amount of $50,995.12.

The plaintiffs, a group of affiliated wine manufacturers and retailers, brought an action against the LCBO, the AGCO, and the Crown challenging the 'Made Policy', which regulates where wineries can sell their products.

The parties brought six competing motions, including motions to strike pleadings, motions for summary judgment, and a motion regarding the late disclosure of a tolling agreement between the defendants.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to strike the defendants' pleadings over the tolling agreement, finding it did not alter the expected adversarial landscape.

The court struck significant portions of the plaintiffs' statement of claim against the LCBO and AGCO, particularly allegations relating to pre-2001 conduct that had been settled in prior litigation, and claims for intentional interference with economic relations.

The Crown's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against it.

The AGCO's and the plaintiffs' respective motions for summary judgment were dismissed, as the complex factual matrix and allegations of bad faith required a trial.

The applicant franchisor sought to enforce a restrictive covenant against a former franchisee who continued to operate a similar home medical equipment business at the same location after the franchise agreement expired.

The respondents argued the covenant was unenforceable due to a failure to provide a disclosure document under the Arthur Wishart Act and that the covenant was an unreasonable restraint of trade.

The court found that disclosure was not required because the franchisor was not sufficiently involved in the sale of the franchise.

The court also held that the restrictive covenant was unambiguous, reasonable in its 18-month and 30-mile scope, and protected the franchisor's legitimate business interests.

The application was granted and the respondents were ordered to cease operating the competing business.

The applicants, former franchisees of a Baton Rouge restaurant, brought an application seeking declarations that a non-competition clause in their franchise agreement was void and unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade or for ambiguity.

They also sought a declaration that their proposed new restaurant menu did not violate the clause, and claimed damages for breach of the duty of fair dealing under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding the 5-year, 10-kilometre restrictive covenant to be reasonable and unambiguous given its narrow scope, which only prohibited selling products using the franchisor's recipes.

The court declined to rule on the proposed menu without evidence of the actual recipes and found no evidence of bad faith by the franchisor.