D. Ronde

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing their franchise dispute action for delay.

The delay was largely attributed to the disappearance of the plaintiffs' initial counsel with trust funds, and subsequent difficulties obtaining the file from replacement counsel.

The court applied the Reid factors and found the plaintiffs had adequately explained the delay, intended to proceed, and the defendants would not suffer actual prejudice.

The dismissal order was set aside.

However, the court granted the defendants' request for security for costs under Rule 56.01, ordering the plaintiffs to post $30,000 as they failed to demonstrate sufficient assets in Ontario.

The franchisor (moving party) brought a motion to hold the former franchisees (responding parties) in civil contempt for breaching an interlocutory injunction that required them to immediately shut down their home care businesses.

The court found that while the franchisor's own confusing communications mitigated some of the franchisees' conduct, the franchisees deliberately violated the order by sending communications to caregivers and customers stating their intention to remain in business.

The court held the corporate franchisees and their individual operating minds in civil contempt, reserving the penalty to a future hearing.

A franchisor sought an interlocutory injunction restraining former franchisees from breaching post‑termination obligations and effectively continuing operations, while the franchisees sought an injunction preventing termination of their businesses.

Applying the interlocutory injunction test, the court found a serious issue to be tried and concluded the franchisor had a strong prima facie case that the franchisees breached contractual prohibitions against common ownership and multiple franchise interests.

Both parties demonstrated potential irreparable harm, but the court held the franchisor’s harm to goodwill, reputation, and system integrity—combined with the franchisees’ inability to satisfy damages—tipped the balance of convenience.

The court emphasized the franchisor’s duty to maintain the integrity of its system under franchise legislation and the risk posed by a rogue franchisee operating contrary to contractual obligations.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs’ motion seeking production of documents from non-parties and to quash a summons requiring a non-party to attend for examination.

The action had already been set down for trial after the plaintiffs served a trial record.

The court held that under Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party who has set an action down for trial cannot initiate further discovery or related motions without leave of the court, absent exceptional circumstances.

The plaintiffs failed to seek leave and did not establish any substantial or unexpected change in circumstances justifying further discovery.

The summons to the non-party was also non‑compliant with Rule 34.03 because it required attendance in a different region from the witness’s residence.