G. Gardner Hodder

The applicants sought to enforce a Chinese arbitral award of approximately $10 million CAD against the respondent in Ontario.

The respondent opposed enforcement, arguing she did not receive proper notice of the arbitration and that the arbitration was not 'international' under the Model Law.

The court found that the respondent was properly served in accordance with the applicable arbitration rules and that the arbitration was international because the respondent habitually resided in Canada when the arbitration agreement was made.

The application to recognize and enforce the award was granted.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the three corporate plaintiffs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) and (e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they had sufficient exigible assets in Ontario to satisfy a costs award, as their primary assets were patents of uncertain value and marketability.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to establish a good chance of success on the merits, particularly given adverse credibility findings against their principal in a related arbitration.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiffs were ordered to post security for costs in tranches.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction restraining a former employee and his new company from soliciting or servicing any past or present customers.

The plaintiff alleged the employee was a fiduciary who breached duties by leaving on short notice and soliciting clients.

The court held the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the employee was a fiduciary or that any continuing breach of fiduciary duty existed.

Evidence of irreparable harm was speculative and limited, and the balance of convenience favoured permitting lawful competition by the former employee’s start‑up business.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action for inducing breach of contract on a motion for summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal found that the motions judge correctly applied the governing principles for summary judgment and that the plaintiff failed to show a genuine issue for trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.