Faraaz Al-Karim Damji

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent an arbitrator from hearing and deciding a challenge to his own jurisdiction until the court determined the plaintiffs' cross-motion to set aside the arbitration agreement.

The plaintiffs had sold two corporations to the defendant for $40 million under a share purchase agreement containing an arbitration clause.

After the transaction closed, disputes arose regarding alleged breaches of warranties and post-closing adjustments.

The plaintiffs subsequently commenced a court action and challenged the arbitrator's jurisdiction in the arbitration proceedings.

The court dismissed the motion for an injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet the first two prongs of the RJR-MacDonald test: there was no serious question to be tried, and no irreparable harm would result from allowing the arbitration to proceed.

The plaintiff, Liberty Tax Service, Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from violating post-termination non-compete and non-solicitation obligations under a franchise agreement, and to compel the return of client records.

The court found a strong prima facie case of competition but not of solicitation, and ordered the return of documents, but declined to grant an interlocutory injunction due to the lateness in the tax season and the potential prejudice to innocent clients.

The plaintiff lender brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants on personal guarantees executed in connection with commercial credit facilities exceeding $3.9 million.

The defendants argued various defences including non est factum, failure to realize on security before enforcing the guarantees, unconscionability, innocent misrepresentation, and lack of independent legal advice.

The court exercised its powers under Rule 20 to weigh evidence and assess credibility and found the primary defence of non est factum unsupported, concluding the defendant guarantor was willfully blind in signing documents without inquiry.

The court also rejected arguments of agency, misrepresentation, unconscionability, and undue influence.

The guarantees were found valid and enforceable and summary judgment was granted to the lender.