Dylan Fisher

The applicant husband brought a motion for an interim preservation order under Rule 45.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and section 12 of the Family Law Act to preserve the assets of several respondent corporations pending trial.

The applicant claimed legal and beneficial ownership of the corporations, which held a substantial real estate portfolio and private mortgage fund, while the respondent wife claimed her mother owned them.

The court found the applicant established a strong prima facie case of ownership and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the unique corporate assets.

The court granted the preservation order for the corporate assets but declined to order preservation for specific residential properties under the Family Law Act.

The applicants brought a motion seeking a finding that the respondents, Hanna Gajek and Katarzyna Krol, failed to comply with two prior court orders requiring disclosure of the assets and liabilities of the late Marek Krol's estate.

The court found that Katarzyna Krol had satisfied her disclosure obligations to the best of her ability, as she had no knowledge or possession of relevant documents.

However, the court found that Hanna Gajek had not fully complied with the orders, particularly regarding documents likely kept in a safe and details of joint bank accounts.

The motion was dismissed against Katarzyna Krol and allowed in part against the Estate of Hanna Gajek, with directions for further disclosure.

The plaintiff, Orpheus Medica Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain former employees and their new company, Deep Biologics Inc., from using a government grant and competing in the development of a COVID-19 rapid diagnostic test.

The plaintiff alleged breach of restrictive covenants, misappropriation of confidential information, and breach of fiduciary and employment duties.

The court applied the strong prima facie case standard because the injunction would effectively be a final determination and restrain competition.

The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, noting credibility issues with the plaintiff's evidence regarding employment agreements and a lack of evidence of misappropriation.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the defendants, particularly given the public interest in developing COVID-19 testing.