Earl A. Cherniak

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' Response to Demand for Particulars and portions of their Reply.

The plaintiffs had previously been denied leave to amend their statement of claim to add causes of action relating to events in 2008 and 2009, with the court finding those claims were not already pleaded.

The plaintiffs subsequently attempted to assert in their particulars and reply that the original claim did include those causes of action.

The court granted the defendants' motion, holding that the plaintiffs were bound by the prior final decisions under the doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse of process.

The defendants brought a motion for a mandatory interim injunction to enforce indemnity agreements and require the plaintiffs to advance funding for their legal expenses.

The court found that the Cytrynbaum jurisprudence did not apply because the motion sought a mandatory injunction against an individual and a corporation, rather than a final determination under the CBCA.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the defendants failed to establish a strong prima facie case due to concerns about conflicts of interest and lack of independent legal advice in the drafting of the indemnity agreements.

The court also found no irreparable harm, as any harm could be quantified in monetary terms.

Two competing law firms brought motions for carriage of a proposed securities class action against Armtec Infrastructure Inc. and its directors and underwriters, alleging misrepresentations in a prospectus and press release.

The court evaluated the competing actions based on the nature and scope of the causes of action, the proposed class definitions, the named defendants, and the representative plaintiffs.

The court granted carriage to the Simmonds plaintiffs, finding their approach to the class definition and damages to be simpler and more cohesive, and their representative plaintiffs to possess significant business acumen.

The competing Locking action was stayed.