J. Renihan

Following the granting of the plaintiff's motion for an injunction, the parties reached an agreement on costs.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff fixed at $40,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, on consent.

The plaintiff real estate law firm sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from terminating its access to 'Conveyancer', a mission-critical software platform.

The defendants had terminated access after learning the plaintiff was developing a competing software product.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding a prior commitment not to terminate and good faith dealings.

The court also found the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm from the inability to close transactions, and the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The injunction was granted until the plaintiff transitioned to its new software or December 31, 2021.

The applicant, Bovaird, purchased land from the respondent, Mattamy, with the intention of developing it for district retail use.

Mattamy agreed to indemnify Bovaird for all future obligations under a cost-sharing agreement.

Bovaird later changed its plans and developed the land for residential use, triggering an additional $2.8 million contribution under the cost-sharing agreement.

Bovaird sought indemnification from Mattamy.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the broad indemnity must be read in the context of the parties' agreement as a whole, which included a specific contractual commitment by Bovaird to develop the land for district retail use.

The court held that Bovaird could not rely on the indemnity to profit from its own breach of that commitment.

The appellant law firm appealed a Master's order declining to strike out paragraphs from the respondent's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, and awarding costs to the self-represented respondent.

The impugned paragraphs alleged abusive conduct by a partner of the firm.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, finding the Master erred in law by failing to consider whether the paragraphs were relevant to the pleadings regarding a contingency fee agreement.

The court struck the paragraphs as irrelevant and set aside the costs award, allowing the parties to file written submissions on costs.

The Canadian Debtors brought a motion for approval of an Allocation Protocol to determine the allocation of approximately $9 billion in sale proceeds among the global Nortel entities.

The EMEA Debtors opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to compel arbitration, arguing the parties had agreed to arbitrate under the Interim Funding and Settlement Agreement.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding the agreement was merely an unenforceable agreement to agree.

The court granted the Canadian Debtors' motion, holding it had discretionary authority under the CCAA to approve the Allocation Protocol and that the parties had irrevocably submitted to the jurisdiction of the Canadian and U.S. courts.

The defendant brought a motion to remove the plaintiffs' counsel, arguing that a settlement agreement from prior litigation prohibited the counsel from acting for certain plaintiffs in this action.

The defendant also sought to strike portions of the statement of claim, alleging a breach of the deemed undertaking rule regarding a disputed document.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion to set a timetable.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that the current claims did not arise directly from the restructuring covered by the settlement agreement and that the deemed undertaking rule did not apply to documents incorporated into a settlement agreement.

The court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion and imposed a case management timetable.