Derek Knoke

An appeal from a summary judgment motion dismissing a claim for breach of confidence.

The appellant, a pharmaceutical company, alleged that the respondent misused confidential information regarding a potential equipment manufacturer (HED International) that was disclosed during a due diligence period for a failed asset purchase agreement.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding no detriment to the appellant.

The appellate court upheld the dismissal, finding that although the motion judge's approach to detriment was overly narrow, the appellant suffered no detriment as a matter of fact because it was not ready to manufacture its products and could not have benefited from direct access to the equipment manufacturer.

The Town of Oakville sought to designate Glen Abbey golf course as a cultural heritage property.

Clublink, the owner, applied under section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act to demolish and remove the golf course.

The Town argued the application should proceed under section 33, which provides different procedural protections and appeal routes.

The central issue was whether a golf course constitutes a "structure" within the meaning of section 34.

The Court of Appeal held that Glen Abbey, being a product of significant construction and engineering comprising constituent parts intended to remain permanently on the property, was a structure within section 34.

The purposive and contextual interpretation of the statute, considering its legislative history and the evolution of municipal heritage planning beyond a "building-centric" paradigm, supported this conclusion.

The applicant, Clublink, owned the Glen Abbey Golf Course in Oakville and sought to redevelop it into a residential and mixed-use community.

The Town designated Glen Abbey as a cultural heritage property and passed five related by-laws, including a Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation Plan By-law, authorizing the preparation of a conservation plan that required Clublink to seek Town approval for alterations to the golf course.

The application judge quashed all five by-laws and the conservation plan, finding them ultra vires, passed in bad faith, and void for vagueness.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, upholding the validity of the five by-laws but quashing the conservation plan resolution on the basis that it effectively compelled Clublink to continue operating the golf course as a service, contrary to section 11(8)5 of the Municipal Act.

A motion for leave to intervene in an appeal was dismissed.

The proposed intervener, a non-profit organization with expertise in architectural conservation, sought to participate in an appeal concerning a municipal decision.

The court found that the proposed intervener failed to clearly articulate how its submissions would differ from those of the appellant, and that granting leave at such a late stage in the proceedings would cause unfairness to the respondents who had already filed their materials.

This application sought a determination of contractual rights regarding an early termination provision in pre-construction condominium agreements.

The applicants argued that a 'sole, absolute and unfettered discretion' proviso in a financing condition rendered the entire condition null and void under the Tarion Addendum, leading to a breach of contract claim.

The court found that the proviso did not form part of the early termination condition or, if it did, it was inconsistent with the Addendum's requirement for commercially reasonable steps and was therefore unenforceable.

The court interpreted the condition to require vendors to take all commercially reasonable steps to arrange satisfactory financing, upholding the validity of the termination condition and dismissing the application.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for breach of confidence and tortious interference with economic interests.

The court found no evidentiary foundation for the breach of confidence claim, noting that alleged confidential information (unsubmitted patent applications, supplier identities) was either not sufficiently identified, publicly available, or not misused by the defendant.

The tortious interference claim failed due to the absence of a third party.

The motion was granted, and the action dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, arguing the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario and evinced financial instability.

The plaintiff opposed, relying on its cash and cash equivalents.

The court found good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets, considering its acknowledged financial instability, lack of commercial activity, an outstanding judgment, and a pending breach of contract claim.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post $50,000.00 as security for costs and pay $5,000.00 in costs for the motion.

The applicants sought to set aside a final arbitration award and obtain leave to appeal it, arguing the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by contravening a shareholders' agreement regarding share valuation and by granting relief against non-parties.

The respondent counter-applied to enforce the award.

The court found the arbitrator did not exceed jurisdiction, as the parties had consented to the arbitrator's jurisdiction over oppression, alter-ego, and fraudulent conveyance claims.

The arbitrator's valuation and liability findings, including holding non-parties liable as alter egos, were deemed within the scope of the consent order.

Leave to appeal on pre-judgment interest calculation was denied as a minor issue not meeting the statutory test.

The applicants' application and appeal were dismissed, and the respondent's counter-application to enforce the award was granted.