2 total
Settlement agreement barred translated trademark phrases but allowed reasonable implementation time.
Two companies providing online boating certification courses brought competing applications alleging breach of a settlement agreement that resolved prior trademark litigation.
One party alleged the other breached the agreement by using translated variations of prohibited trademark phrases in website metatags, while the other alleged breach through acceptance of prepaid vouchers issued by it.
The court held that the settlement agreement’s prohibition on using certain phrases extended to translations such as “boat exam” and “boating exam,” and ordered the respondent to cease using them.
However, the court found that a five‑day delay in ceasing to honour prepaid vouchers constituted performance within a reasonable time where the agreement specified no deadline.
Security for costs denied where counterclaim mirrors defence and justice disfavors funding litigation.
The defendants by counterclaim brought a motion for security for costs against foreign corporate and individual plaintiffs by counterclaim under Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The responding parties cross‑moved for security for costs against the original plaintiff, arguing that it lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs order.
The court held that although the foreign plaintiffs had no assets in Ontario and therefore technically met the threshold for security, their counterclaim largely mirrored the factual matrix of their defence.
Exercising its discretion, the court found that ordering security would effectively require a defendant to post security merely to defend the action.
The cross‑motion was also refused because granting security would effectively fund the counterclaim of a non‑resident party with no assets in Ontario.
Both motions were dismissed and no order for costs was made.
