3 total
Time-limited interlocutory injunction granted to prevent launch of competing craft beer competition using confidential information.
The plaintiff, owner of a longstanding craft beer competition, brought a motion for an interim injunction to prevent the defendants from holding a competing national craft beer competition.
The plaintiff alleged that a former employee, now working for the defendant association, misused confidential financial and business information obtained during his employment and during subsequent failed negotiations to purchase the plaintiff's competition.
The court applied the RJR MacDonald test and found a serious issue to be tried, presumed irreparable harm due to the nature of the confidential business information, and determined the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.
A time-limited injunction was granted until September 1, 2022.
Arbitral award recognized; alleged conflict of interest by counsel did not violate public policy.
The applicant sought recognition of a $22 million arbitral award against the respondent.
The respondent opposed recognition, arguing it would be contrary to Ontario public policy because its counsel in the arbitration had a conflict of interest by providing expert evidence in a separate case that the applicant could indirectly benefit from.
The court rejected this defence, finding that the alleged conflict did not fundamentally offend basic principles of justice and fairness, and granted the order recognizing the award.
Motion for leave to appeal order setting aside Mareva injunction dismissed for failing to meet test.
The moving party sought leave to appeal an order that set aside a Mareva injunction but declined to do so on the basis of material non-disclosure, and which did not preclude the responding party from bringing a fresh motion for injunctive relief.
The moving party also sought leave to appeal the costs disposition.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to meet the strict test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as there was no conflicting decision and the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general or public importance.