Garth Bleier Dingwall

The plaintiff, a start-up, sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to compel the defendants to hand over the source code and software assets needed to operate its business, and to prevent the defendants from exploiting them.

The individual defendant, a co-founder and the plaintiff's Chief Technology Officer, argued that his corporate entity owned the intellectual property, which pre-dated the plaintiff's incorporation.

The plaintiff relied on assignment agreements executed by the defendant.

The motion judge granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the assignment and employment status, irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business and reputation if denied access to the software, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment declaring the respondent the sole beneficial owner of a residential property and ordering its transfer, along with general and punitive damages.

The trial judge found the appellant held the property in trust for the respondent, her niece, who paid the deposit and carrying costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's interpretation of the trust documents or her rejection of the appellant's illegality defence.

The punitive damages award was upheld as the appellant's high-handed conduct, including failing to pay property taxes and maintain insurance, merited sanction.

The court granted the motion by the defendants Mario Cortis and MediHub International Inc. for security for costs, ordering $80,000 to be posted by the plaintiff, John Davis, but stayed the order for 90 days due to evidence that Davis may imminently return to Ontario.

The decision reviews the legal test for security for costs, the relevance and admissibility of new evidence, and the balancing of interests between the parties.

The court found that Davis had not demonstrated that an order for security for costs would be unjust, and that the amount sought by the defendants was excessive, setting a lower amount.

The ruling also addresses delay, bad faith allegations, and the complexity of the case.

The applicant sought costs of $17,440.19 for a motion to consolidate civil and family proceedings.

The parties reached a consent agreement on the day of the motion.

The court found the motion was premature and could have been avoided if counsel had conferred in advance.

However, the respondents failed to comply with the rules by not filing responding materials or filing them late.

The court awarded reduced costs of $4,500 to the applicant, payable equally by the respondents.

The appellant tenant failed to appear at the peremptory hearing and failed to pay the monthly rent as required by the conditions of a previous adjournment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondent landlord.

The self-represented appellant tenant sought an adjournment of the appeal hearing because the respondent landlord failed to comply with a case management directive regarding the service of materials.

The tenant received the materials only a week before the hearing and required time to seek legal advice.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment on conditions, including that the tenant pay rent on specified dates, and reserved the costs of the attendance to the panel hearing the appeal.

Following a successful application regarding the interpretation of a commercial contract for the development of a non-profit cemetery, the applicant sought costs of $45,891.90 on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded or, alternatively, that costs should be capped at $20,000.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments against awarding costs, noting the applicant was wholly successful.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1) and the principle of proportionality, the court fixed the applicant's costs at $35,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The vendors appealed a judgment granting specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for residential property in Ajax, Ontario.

The vendors had breached the agreement by failing to provide vacant possession on the closing date.

The sole ground of appeal was that the purchaser's delay of 17 months before commencing the application disentitled him from obtaining specific performance.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the factual findings regarding the property's uniqueness, the inadequacy of damages as a remedy, the reasonableness of the delay in the circumstances, and the absence of hardship to the vendors.

The applicant, a non-profit corporation, brought an application to interpret an agreement regarding the development and management of a cemetery for the Sunni Muslim community.

The court found that the agreement granted the applicant the right to set its own price list for its designated phase of the cemetery.

Furthermore, the court held that the Care and Maintenance Fund (CMF) contributions under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act must be calculated based on the applicant's lower price list, and that certificates of interment rights are to be issued as individual plots are transferred, rather than all at once.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a trial where there was divided success between the parties.

The Defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis, arguing they were the successful parties as they recovered compensation and secured protection from mortgage liability.

The Plaintiff also sought costs.

The court agreed that the Defendants were the successful parties for the purpose of costs but adjusted the amount claimed by the Defendants downwards.

The court awarded costs, including disbursements and taxes, to the Defendants in the amount of $45,000, to be paid by the Plaintiff.

The applicant sought specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property after the vendors refused to close unless the purchaser assumed an existing tenant.

The court held that the agreement unequivocally required vacant possession, the entire agreement clause barred reliance on alleged pre-contract discussions, and the vendors' refusal constituted anticipatory breach.

Applying the modern specific performance framework, the court found the property sufficiently unique to this purchaser, particularly given neighbourhood characteristics and affordability in a rapidly rising market, and held that damages would be inadequate.

Delay in commencing the application and alleged hardship to the vendors did not disentitle the applicant to equitable relief.