Garth Low

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction against former employees who started a competing business, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and improper solicitation of customers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the plaintiff failed to provide clear and non-speculative evidence of irreparable harm.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the defendants, as an injunction could financially ruin their new business, whereas the plaintiff showed no evidence of actual damage.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against a corporate plaintiff that admitted it was no longer operating and likely lacked assets in Ontario.

The plaintiff argued that security should not be ordered because the defendant’s counterclaim exceeded the value of the claim and arose from the same facts.

The court held that the existence or size of a counterclaim is not determinative and does not bar security for costs where the statutory grounds under Rule 56.01 are met.

The plaintiff’s principal offered a personal undertaking to cover costs, but the court found insufficient evidence of assets to make the undertaking adequate security.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $58,000 as security for costs and awarded motion costs to the defendant.

The court considered costs submissions following a motion.

The responding parties did not dispute the number of hours or rates claimed by counsel for the successful parties, except for the preparation time for the motion.

The court found that four hours of preparation was reasonable and awarded costs of $6,510.09 inclusive for the motion, plus $250.00 plus HST for preparing the costs submissions.

Although the responding parties argued that payment within 30 days would cause financial hardship, the court allowed additional time for payment.

Costs were ordered payable within 90 days.