David M. Sundin

On a Rule 21 motion, the moving defendant sought to strike a claim arising from an exclusive distribution agreement on the basis of privity of contract after an alleged corporate takeover of the original contracting party.

The responding party also sought leave to amend and to file evidence.

The court held that evidence was inadmissible on the motion, but allowed the proposed amendment and declined to strike the contract-based claims because it was not plain and obvious they had no reasonable prospect of success, including on a novel theory that obligations could flow through a merger, acquisition, or common directing mind.

The tortious interference claim was struck for failure to plead the necessary third-party element.

No costs were awarded given the mixed result.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence to increase capacity by adding an outdoor rear patio.

Several local residents objected, citing concerns about noise, traffic, and garbage.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had a stellar record and operated primarily as a restaurant, not a bar.

The objectors failed to establish that granting the licence was contrary to the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application without additional conditions.