7 total
Leave to appeal dismissal of mandatory injunction for fleet insurance denied due to mootness and merits.
The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion for a mandatory injunction to compel the respondents to provide fleet insurance for their rental vehicles.
Fresh evidence revealed that the moving parties had sold their fleet, rendering the motion moot.
The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal on the basis of mootness, and alternatively on the merits, finding no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.
Costs of the Superior Court motion awarded to the appellants on consent fixed at $30,000.
The appellants were awarded costs of the motion before the Superior Court on consent.
The respondents were ordered to pay $30,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, in addition to the costs awarded to the appellants in the appeal.
Appeal allowed; claim against parent company for breach of franchise duties not plainly doomed.
The appellants, General Motors dealers in the Greater Toronto Area, sued GMCL and its US parent company, GM US, alleging breaches of the duty of good faith and fair dealing under the Arthur Wishart Act and at common law.
The motion judge struck the claim against GM US under Rule 21, finding it was neither a party to the franchise agreement nor a franchisor's associate.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the determination of whether GM US was a franchisor's associate or owed a duty of fair dealing required a full factual record and should not be dismissed at the pleadings stage.
Mareva injunction denied; moving party failed to show strong prima facie case or improper asset dissipation.
The plaintiff moved for a Mareva injunction to freeze approximately $1.1 million held in a custody account belonging to the defendant, alleging the funds were mistakenly paid.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, a real risk of asset dissipation for an improper purpose, or irreparable harm.
The defendant's intention to withdraw the funds was deemed a legitimate part of its corporate wind-down process.
Parent companies struck from franchise claim; bailout allegations removed as abusive.
On motions to strike in a franchise dispute arising from the post-bankruptcy restructuring of an automotive manufacturer, the court dismissed the entire claim against the U.S. parent entities and struck discrete allegations against the Canadian franchisor.
The court held that a franchisor’s associate is not liable under s. 3 of the Arthur Wishart Act unless it is also a party to the relevant franchise agreement, and further found the pleadings did not satisfy the statutory definition of franchisor’s associate.
The court also held that the pleadings did not justify piercing the corporate veil to impose contractual liability on the parent companies.
Allegations concerning misuse of government bailout funds and the defendants’ preference of their own interests were struck as irrelevant, scandalous, and abusive.
Leave to amend was refused.
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment upheld finding no breach of fiduciary duty by estate trustee.
The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claims against Royal Trust for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence regarding an option agreement.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the option agreement was unambiguous and had become null and void after the sale of the business.
The Court also agreed that Royal Trust acted prudently in selling the estate assets and that summary judgment was appropriate under the Hryniak framework.
Mandatory injunction denied where franchise agreement allowed franchisor management control before expiry.
The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction requiring the franchisor to reinstate them in control of a pharmacy during a contractual management period following notice that the franchise relationship would not be renewed.
The dispute arose under an associate agreement governed by the Arthur Wishart Act and included interpretation of provisions allowing the franchisor to assume management control during the final 60 days before expiry.
The court held the requested relief was a mandatory injunction requiring the plaintiffs to demonstrate a strong prima facie case.
The plaintiffs failed to establish even a serious issue to be tried, as the agreement clearly permitted the franchisor to assume management upon expiry by effluxion of time.
Claims of irreparable harm were speculative and the balance of convenience favoured the franchisor.
