4 total
Interlocutory injunction against former employee denied; restrictive covenant expired and no fiduciary duty found.
The plaintiff employer sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain a former employee from competing, soliciting customers, or using confidential information.
The court applied the strong prima facie case standard because the injunction would restrict the employee's livelihood.
The court found the restrictive covenant had expired years prior, the employee was not a fiduciary, and the customer list was not proprietary confidential information.
The motion for an injunction was dismissed, but a sealing and protective order was granted on consent.
Court fixes costs after trial despite defendant’s post-trial consumer proposal.
Following a successful trial judgment awarding damages for unpaid loans, the court determined the appropriate costs award.
The successful plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs to the date of a settlement offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, relying on Rule 57.01 and the fact that the trial result exceeded the offer.
The court reduced certain trial preparation hours but otherwise found the rates and time spent reasonable.
A co-defendant who had not opposed the claim but had defended against cross-liability from the other defendant was also awarded costs.
Costs payable by the remaining defendant were fixed notwithstanding a consumer proposal filed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act after trial but before the costs determination.
Financial advances to adult son and daughter-in-law found to be loans, not gifts; joint liability ordered.
The plaintiff father brought an action against his son and former daughter-in-law to recover over $98,000 in financial advances made during their marriage.
The son admitted the advances were loans and claimed joint liability, while the former daughter-in-law argued they were gifts.
The court found the advances were loans, noting the presumption of advancement does not apply to adult children and the daughter-in-law failed to prove an intention to gift.
Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff against both defendants jointly and severally.
Summary hearing request denied; housing discrimination claim involving a life interest proceeds to full hearing.
The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, and reprisal in relation to housing against her brother, who owned the property where she held a life interest.
The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing that the Code's housing provisions did not apply to their relationship as he was not a conventional landlord.
The Tribunal found that the Code does not explicitly limit its application to conventional landlord-tenant relationships and that the applicant's allegations required a full hearing to resolve credibility issues.
The request to dismiss the application was denied.
