Joseph Neil Blinick

The applicants sought a declaration that the respondent breached a Letter Agreement and had no valid license to market and sell the applicants' fish-rearing technology.

The court found that neither party had breached the agreement, as time of the essence had been suspended and not properly reinstated.

The parties had mutually agreed to terminate the agreement, triggering the respondent's right to a refund or a license.

The court held that the respondent validly exercised its right to acquire the license, which was certain and enforceable.

The application was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside default judgment obtained by the plaintiff on a promissory note.

The court applied the Mountain View Farms test, considering promptness, plausible excuse for default, arguable defence, prejudice, and the integrity of justice.

The defendants demonstrated a plausible excuse for delay (financial difficulty in retaining counsel) and arguable defences, including undue influence/lack of independent legal advice, improvident insurance settlement affecting the note's quantum, and the plaintiff's status as an unregistered collection agency or Ontario's jurisdiction.

The court found minimal prejudice to the plaintiff, who had delayed collection for six years, and that setting aside default judgment served the interests of justice, especially given active discussions between counsel prior to default.

The motion was granted, and default judgment was set aside.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to validate service of a statement of claim on two defendants, or alternatively to extend the time for service.

The plaintiffs had failed to formally serve the defendants within the six-month deadline but had provided a courtesy copy to their counsel, and the defendants had notified their insurer.

The defendants argued they would be prejudiced because they had shredded old tenant files after the service deadline.

The Master found the defendants had notice of the claim well before shredding the files and thus created their own prejudice.

The motion was granted, service was validated, and the plaintiffs were awarded costs.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the moving party sought production of an internal email exchanged during the employer’s misconduct investigation and copied to external employment counsel.

The court applied the settled test for solicitor-client privilege and held the employer failed to prove the email entailed the seeking or giving of legal advice.

The surrounding evidence suggested the author was providing an internal unbiased opinion on discipline rather than communicating for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, and the employer relied only on weak hearsay evidence on the author’s intention instead of best evidence.

The motion to compel production was granted, with costs to the moving party subject to written submissions.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction arising from an alleged scheme by a former consultant and others to appropriate the goodwill, opportunities, confidential information, sponsors, and venue associated with the plaintiff's established industry conference.

The court found a strong prima facie case in breach of contract, unlawful interference with economic interests, passing off, and civil conspiracy, with at least serious issues to be tried on fiduciary duty.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald and American Cyanamid injunction frameworks, the court held that damages would be inadequate given the intangible and difficult-to-quantify loss of goodwill, market position, and reputation, and the defendants' inability to satisfy a damages award.

The balance of convenience favoured preserving the plaintiff's position and preventing the defendants from using the fruits of the alleged misconduct.

Interlocutory injunctive relief was granted pending trial or other final disposition.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment based on disability regarding his accommodation and subsequent termination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with in a grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the grievance arbitrator had considered the accommodation process, the work refusal, and the harassment allegations, ultimately concluding the termination was justified.

Applying the principles of finality, the Tribunal dismissed the application.