Denise Cooney

The applicant sought a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from breaching negative covenants in their long-term Royalty Agreement governing a collision repair shop network.

The respondent, which operated 65 shops under the applicant's brand, gave notice of its intention to unilaterally leave the relationship and rebrand its shops, openly acknowledging this would constitute a breach of contract.

The respondent argued damages would be an adequate remedy, invoking the concept of efficient breach.

The court rejected this argument, finding the damages were too complex, multi-layered, and potentially incalculable over the remaining 19-year term to make monetary compensation adequate.

The court granted the permanent injunction enforcing the negative covenants and awarded costs of $185,000 to the applicant.

The moving party brought a motion for directions regarding the responding party's failure to comply with previous court orders requiring the production of documents and attendance at an examination in aid of execution.

The court found that the contemnor, the sole director of the responding corporate debtor, had not purged his civil contempt as he failed to produce several important categories of documents.

As a sanction, the court ordered the contemnor to pay the full judgment amount of $424,769.22 into court, make a charitable donation, and pay full indemnity costs, failing which he would be deemed to have discontinued a related action against the moving party.

The defendant brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action on the basis that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

The plaintiff, a UK national residing in Bahrain, had entered into an oral loan agreement with the defendant, who claimed to reside in Pakistan.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant was domiciled or resident in Ontario, or carried on business in Ontario.

The court found that while the defendant carried on business in Ontario, the presumption of jurisdiction was rebutted because there was no real and substantial connection between the loan agreement and the defendant's business activities in Ontario.

The action was stayed for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter.

Following an order striking out the plaintiff's statement of claim, the successful defendant sought costs of $500.

The self-represented plaintiff opposed the costs request, citing an inability to pay and disagreeing with the underlying decision.

The court found the defendant's request for a token costs award of $500 to be very reasonable, noting that a lack of resources does not provide a license to bring unsuccessful proceedings without consequence.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $500 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendant university brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff alleged wrongful expulsion, assault, and discrimination occurring in and around 2000.

The court dismissed the action, finding it was barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Furthermore, the court noted it lacked jurisdiction over academic disputes and human rights claims, which must be directed to the university's internal processes and the Human Rights Tribunal, respectively.

In the CCAA proceedings of U.S. Steel Canada Inc., its parent company, United States Steel Corporation, sought approval of several proofs of claim totaling over $2 billion.

Various stakeholders objected, arguing that the intercompany loans should be re-characterized as 'equity claims' under the CCAA and that the security granted for certain advances was void as a fraudulent preference or unenforceable for lack of consideration.

The court rejected the objections, finding that the parent company had a reasonable expectation of repayment when the advances were made, and that the security was validly granted for fresh consideration and did not constitute a fraudulent preference.

The claims were confirmed as debt claims.

Following the dismissal of motions seeking an interlocutory voting injunction, an imaging order, and a contempt order, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The unsuccessful moving party argued that most costs should be deferred to trial because the evidence overlapped with issues to be litigated on the merits.

The court rejected this submission, applying the principle that a successful defendant resisting interlocutory injunctive relief is generally entitled to costs payable forthwith.

After considering factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the high stakes of the motions, the absence of legal complexity, and certain conduct contributing to the contempt motion, the court fixed reduced partial indemnity costs for each successful defendant.

The moving party sought three forms of relief in a commercial dispute involving alleged misuse of confidential information: an interlocutory injunction preventing a shareholder from voting its 35% interest in a telecommunications company, an order authorizing forensic imaging and review of the defendants’ corporate servers and devices, and a finding of contempt for alleged breach of a prior consent order.

The court held that the requested voting injunction could not be granted because the moving party failed to provide the mandatory undertaking as to damages under Rule 40.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a favourable balance of convenience.

The requested imaging order was refused because there was no evidence that the responding party had failed to comply with its document production obligations or attempted to conceal or destroy electronic evidence.

The contempt motion also failed because the alleged acts—deleting personal browsing history and installing software capable of secure deletion—did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that relevant information had been intentionally destroyed in breach of the consent order.

Investors in real estate development projects brought an oppression application under ss. 161 and 248 of the Business Corporations Act seeking, among other relief, the appointment of an inspector to investigate the use of investor funds.

The evidence showed project funds had been commingled in a separate entity rather than segregated as investors had been led to expect, financial disclosure was deficient, audited financial statements were unavailable, and a dividend was withheld from one preferred shareholder.

The court held that these circumstances raised a prima facie case that reasonable security holder expectations had been defeated and that oppressive conduct may have occurred.

The court ordered the appointment of a court‑appointed inspector and granted additional relief including payment of an unpaid dividend, redemption of preferred shares, and production of a shareholder list.