Jasmine T. Akbarali

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's action for indemnity under a share purchase agreement.

The action was based on alleged breaches of a tax representation and warranty.

The defendants argued the action was statute-barred and that the plaintiff's claim for "loss of use of funds" was limited by contract.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the action was statute-barred because the six-year limitation period began when the plaintiff knew the material facts of the breach and the resulting "claim" (Revenue Canada's reassessment), not upon a demand for indemnity or its refusal.

The court also dismissed the claim for loss of use of funds beyond the contractually agreed prime rate.

The self-represented defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the Minister of National Revenue regarding her student loan debt.

The defendant had entered into a payment arrangement with the Minister and was advised by the Canada Revenue Agency that she could ignore the statement of claim.

Despite this, the Minister obtained default judgment and garnished her wages.

The court found the Minister's conduct to be exploitative, abusive, and an abuse of process.

The court set aside the default judgment, notice of garnishment, and writs of seizure and sale, and awarded costs to the defendant to sanction the Minister's behavior.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an interlocutory injunction and compliance order against a unit owner who engaged in a pattern of harassing and threatening behaviour towards condominium staff and residents.

The applicant also sought an order for a mental examination of the respondent to determine if a litigation guardian was required.

The court declined to order a mental examination, finding insufficient evidence that the respondent's mental condition was relevant to a material issue in the proceeding.

However, the court granted the interlocutory injunction, compliance order, and declaratory relief, finding that the respondent's conduct breached the Condominium Act and constituted workplace harassment.

The defendants, originator pharmaceutical companies, brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff generic manufacturer's statement of claim, or alternatively for particulars.

The plaintiff sought damages under section 8 of the PMNOC Regulations and the Statutes of Monopolies for delayed market entry due to an allegedly invalid patent.

The court struck the Statutes of Monopolies claims as premature because the plaintiff had not yet obtained an in rem declaration of invalidity from the Federal Court.

The court also struck 'basket clause' claims but allowed claims against a related corporate entity and allegations of an anti-competitive product switching campaign to proceed.

Particulars were ordered for claims of lost sales, profits, and business opportunities.