David E. Greenwood

The plaintiff sought an interim injunction and preservation order against former employees who started a competing realty tax business, alleging breach of non-competition and non-solicitation agreements.

The court found a serious issue to be tried but concluded the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any lost sales or market share could be compensated in damages.

The balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The court dismissed the motion for an interim injunction and forensic inspection but ordered the defendants to preserve any documents and devices belonging to the plaintiff.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order regarding a real estate transaction.

They argued the motion judge erred in applying the test for uniqueness of the property by giving undue emphasis to subjective elements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge properly applied the test and was entitled to accept the evidence of the respondent's wife regarding the property's uniqueness.

A cross-appeal by the respondent for further damages was also dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The defendants brought parallel motions for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure against corporate and partnership plaintiffs who alleged losses exceeding $1,000,000 arising from a trading incident involving brokerage services and trading software.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

The court reviewed the financial circumstances of the plaintiffs and their principals and considered whether they could reasonably post security or obtain a letter of credit.

Finding that ordering security would effectively force abandonment of a claim that was not plainly devoid of merit, and that the plaintiffs were effectively impecunious, the court declined to require security for costs.

The motions were dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order upholding a Master's decision to set aside a previous order dismissing the plaintiffs' action.

The action had been dismissed after the plaintiffs failed to post security for costs.

The court found that while there were conflicting decisions regarding the application of Rule 37.14(1)(a), it was not desirable to grant leave to appeal in this case due to its specific circumstances, including the plaintiffs being unrepresented foreign residents at the time of the dismissal.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed and age after being terminated for refusing to work evenings and Saturdays for religious reasons.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss or defer the application because the applicant had also commenced a civil action for constructive dismissal.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under section 34(11) of the Code, finding that the civil action did not seek remedies for human rights infringements.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, noting that the two proceedings dealt with different legal theories and the civil action was not close to resolution.