Grace Bryson

On a motion for leave to intervene in a pending constitutional challenge to the mental-illness exclusion from medical assistance in dying, the court granted leave to four public-interest interveners to participate in an urgent July motion seeking individual constitutional relief under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

Applying Rule 13.02 and the generous constitutional intervention framework, the court found each proposed intervener had a sufficient interest, distinct perspective, or recognized expertise capable of assisting the court.

The court held it was premature to determine intervention in the underlying application because the evidentiary record was incomplete and additional intervener requests might follow.

Strict limits were imposed: no new evidence, no new issues, no submissions on the individual applicant’s personal circumstances, and no costs.

The court-appointed receiver of a partnership brought a motion seeking expanded investigative powers to examine a partner and two former employees under oath regarding potential insider transactions.

The partner opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for production of the receiver's investigative materials.

The court granted the receiver the power to examine the partner, limited to transactions within two years of the receivership, finding it just and convenient to investigate the concerns.

However, the court denied the request to examine the former employees as premature, requiring the receiver to exhaust ordinary investigatory tools first.

The partner's cross-motion was dismissed, and the receiver's fees and activities were approved.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce non-competition and non-solicitation clauses against a former investment advisor.

The defendant had previously sold his business to the plaintiff's parent company and signed an employment agreement containing the restrictive covenants.

After resigning, the defendant allegedly solicited clients and employees to join him at a competing firm, and breached an interim injunction by contacting clients.

The court found a strong prima facie case that the restrictive covenants were valid and breached, and that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm.

The interlocutory injunction was granted.

The applicant sought a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from breaching negative covenants in their long-term Royalty Agreement governing a collision repair shop network.

The respondent, which operated 65 shops under the applicant's brand, gave notice of its intention to unilaterally leave the relationship and rebrand its shops, openly acknowledging this would constitute a breach of contract.

The respondent argued damages would be an adequate remedy, invoking the concept of efficient breach.

The court rejected this argument, finding the damages were too complex, multi-layered, and potentially incalculable over the remaining 19-year term to make monetary compensation adequate.

The court granted the permanent injunction enforcing the negative covenants and awarded costs of $185,000 to the applicant.