Geoffrey Michael Cullwick

The plaintiff, Ocean Dredging DM Inc., brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant, Kehoe Marine Construction Ltd., from breaching a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and to compel the defendant to negotiate subcontracts for a marine dredging project.

The court found that the relief sought was mandatory in nature, requiring a strong prima facie case.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding that the MOU was an agreement to negotiate with many outstanding terms, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for an injunction, the court determined the costs of the motion.

The plaintiff argued costs should be in the cause, while the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs payable forthwith.

The court applied the presumptive 'pay as you go' rule under Rule 57.03, finding no reason to depart from it.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the motion was not frivolous or an abuse of process.

Partial indemnity costs totaling $44,000 were awarded to the various defendants, with payment extended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant general contractor brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff subcontractor in a construction lien action.

The defendant first sought leave under s. 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act.

The court granted leave, finding it necessary to achieve procedural fairness as the defendant had posted security to vacate the lien.

The court found good reason to believe the corporate plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario based on admissions that it was no longer performing mechanical work.

The plaintiff failed to prove sufficient assets or a good chance of success on the merits.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $50,000 in security for costs in installments.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent former employees and their new competing businesses from soliciting its customers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, as the non-competition agreements were either expired or likely unenforceable.

Furthermore, the court found no irreparable harm, concluding that damages would be an adequate remedy if the plaintiff ultimately succeeded at trial.

The plaintiff obtained a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a motion without notice against properties owned by corporations controlled by his son, alleging the son misappropriated funds while acting as his attorney for property.

The defendants moved to set aside the CPL for failure to make full and fair disclosure, or alternatively to discharge it under the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that while the plaintiff failed to disclose material facts regarding the son's legal representation, the CPL would have been granted regardless.

The court also declined to discharge the CPL, finding a triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the properties and that the balance of equities favoured maintaining the CPL.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought relief from forfeiture, an order compelling arbitration, and rent abatement after the respondent landlord issued a notice to quit upon the expiration of their lease.

The court found that relief from forfeiture was unavailable because the lease had expired by its terms, not due to a breach or default by the tenant.

The court also determined that the parties had abandoned their agreement to arbitrate by failing to appoint an arbitrator within the stipulated timeframe.

Consequently, the claims for arbitration and rent abatement, which was an issue for arbitration, were dismissed.