J. Chan

The applicants sought leave to appeal an arbitral award that dismissed their claims against former employees for breach of a non-solicitation clause and breach of confidence.

The applicants alleged the arbitrator committed several errors of law, including finding that responding to a Request for Proposal did not constitute solicitation and failing to find a breach of confidence.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the alleged errors were either questions of mixed fact and law or not errors of law, and would not significantly affect the rights of the parties.

The defendant insurer moved under Rule 30.10 for production of records from various non-parties, including the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), relating to an organized crime investigation known as Project Hobart.

The insurer sought these records to defend an action for coverage following an arson at the plaintiff's business premises.

The court dismissed the motion for the OPP records, finding that the insurer failed to establish that the criminal investigation file, which did not involve arson charges, was relevant to a material issue in the civil action.

An alternative request to stay the action was also dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding parties.

The applicant, charged with fraud over $5000 for allegedly collecting social assistance overpayments, brought a Rowbotham application seeking a stay of proceedings pending state-funded counsel.

The applicant argued the case was complex and he lacked the means to retain private counsel.

The court dismissed the application, finding the case was primarily fact-based and not sufficiently complex to warrant state-funded counsel at the preliminary inquiry stage, without prejudice to renew the application if committed to trial.

The plaintiff, a payday loan business, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to enforce a restrictive covenant in its commercial lease.

The covenant prohibited the landlord from leasing space in the plaza to competing businesses.

The landlord leased an adjacent unit to a competitor offering installment loans.

The court found that the competitor's business was sufficiently similar to violate the restrictive covenant.

Applying the RJR-Macdonald test with a strong prima facie case standard, the court granted the injunction, ordering the landlord to comply with the exclusivity provision and restraining the competitor from operating its business at the plaza.