Elie Farkas

The applicant, CCI Bioenergy Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to compel the respondent, Veolia Water Canada, Inc., to continue an agreement for organic waste processing services and to reinstate two of CCI's employees, following an explosion at the facility and subsequent termination of services by Veolia.

The court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions, finding the injunction sought was mandatory, requiring a strong prima facie case.

The court determined that CCI failed to establish a strong prima facie case or demonstrate irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored Veolia due to the breakdown of trust and potential safety issues.

The motion for injunction was dismissed, but a sealing order for CCI's financial statements and personal employee information was granted.

Costs were awarded to Veolia.

The plaintiffs purchased the defendant's software business for $1.25 million.

As part of the transaction, the defendant agreed to a three-year non-competition covenant.

The defendant subsequently incorporated a new company and launched a competing software product while still employed by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs moved for an interlocutory injunction to enforce the non-competition clause.

The court granted the injunction, finding that the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case of breach, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff, self-represented, brought a claim against the defendants concerning the 2008 acquisition of Aurelian Resources Inc. by Kinross Gold Corporation, alleging conspiracy, share price manipulation, wrongful acquisition of shares, and concealment.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, being scandalous/frivolous/vexatious/abuse of process, and being time-barred.

The court struck the claim in its entirety for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action due to lack of material facts and proper pleading of elements.

Claims arising directly from the 2008 acquisition were also struck as time-barred.

However, the court granted leave to amend the non-time-barred portions of the claim, acknowledging the plaintiff's self-represented status and misunderstanding of pleading rules.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a certification motion for a proposed class action against a car rental company.

The proposed class consisted of branch managers who alleged they were misclassified as managers and improperly denied overtime pay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the claims lacked sufficient commonality due to the substantial variability in the job functions and duties actually performed by the proposed class members across different branch locations.

The court also upheld the motion judge's refusal to certify aggregate damages and the finding that British Columbia class members had no cause of action.

The individual defendants, comprising management and major label directors of Re:Sound, brought motions under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike oppression claims asserted against them personally by ACTRA Performers’ Rights Society (ACTRA PRS).

ACTRA PRS alleged that the individual defendants, through their actions and inactions, caused Re:Sound to unfairly compete with ACTRA PRS, fail to adopt proper fee policies, neglect technological enhancements for equitable royalty distribution, and inadequately enforce tariffs, all for personal gain or to benefit their nominating organizations.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the oppression claims were sufficiently pleaded, not plain and obvious to fail, and did not constitute an abuse of process.

The court applied the two-prong test for personal liability in oppression claims, concluding that the defendants were sufficiently implicated in the alleged oppressive conduct and that personal liability could be a fit remedy.

The plaintiffs, owners of a downtown Toronto office tower, sued the defendants, operators of the building's parking garage, for unpaid fixed monthly fees from April 2020 to April 2021.

The defendants ceased full payments due to the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on revenue, arguing a binding oral agreement to reduce fees, the application of a force majeure clause, and contract frustration.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding no valid amendment to the contract due to a "no oral modification" clause and lack of consideration, no detrimental reliance for promissory estoppel, and that neither the force majeure clause nor the doctrine of frustration applied as the contract merely became unprofitable, not impossible to perform.

The plaintiff, an investor in a mining company, brought a motion for leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Securities Act and a motion to certify a class action under the Class Proceedings Act.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to disclose material facts about the viability of a gold mine in their prospectuses, which were later revealed in a press release, causing a drop in share price.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide expert geological evidence to explain the technical mining disclosures and establish that the alleged omissions were known or knowable at the time the prospectuses were issued.

Without such evidence, there was no reasonable possibility of success for the statutory claim and no basis in fact for the class action common issues.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against a car rental company, alleging systemic misclassification of branch managers and seeking unpaid overtime.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the proposed common issues regarding misclassification could not be resolved on a class-wide basis due to significant variability in the actual job functions performed by managers across different branch locations.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's proposed methodologies for calculating aggregate damages, which relied on computer log-in data and anonymous crowdsourced internet reviews.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding a data breach sought court approval of a settlement with the defendant GitHub.

The court declined to approve the settlement as proposed, noting that it could not make a binding ruling on its own jurisdiction based on the consent of the parties, and that the substantive merits of the settlement (essentially a discontinuance) did not support approval at this stage.

At the parties' request, the motion was adjourned sine die.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision.

Prior to the appeal, the appellant's former counsel and the respondent's counsel exchanged emails and reached a settlement agreement, which included the appellant waiving his right of appeal and forgiving a loan in exchange for a waiver of costs.

The appellant subsequently argued he never intended to make a binding offer and that his counsel lacked authority.

The Court of Appeal held that the settlement should be enforced, as the appellant's counsel had authority to negotiate and no limitation on that authority was communicated to the respondent.

The appeal was allowed only to substitute an order in accordance with the settlement.

This decision addresses costs following three motions, where the plaintiff was largely successful in obtaining an extension to file a statement of claim despite breaching a peremptory order.

The plaintiff sought costs, but the court denied them.

The denial was based on the plaintiff having received a substantial indulgence from the court, the necessity of much of the evidence and argument regardless of the defendants' position, and the plaintiff's failure as a self-represented litigant to provide evidence of lost income.

The plaintiff, Sae-Bin Im, sought an extension of time to file a statement of claim, while several defendants moved to dismiss the action for breach of a peremptory order and for delay.

The court found the plaintiff's explanation for non-compliance, including self-representation, involvement in other litigation, and medical issues (depression and anxiety), to be satisfactory and not intentional.

The court also found no significant prejudice to the sophisticated defendants, who were aware of the proceedings and could preserve evidence.

The court granted the plaintiff an extension to file the statement of claim and dismissed the defendants' motions to dismiss, emphasizing that the plaintiff's claim, though lengthy, was not frivolous or vexatious.