J. Woycheshyn

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.

The defendants appealed an interlocutory order of a Master refusing to substitute a different representative for examination for discovery of a corporate defendant under Rule 31.03(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The moving parties sought to replace the individual selected by the plaintiff with a different representative who was also a named defendant.

Applying the deferential standard of review for appeals from discretionary decisions of a Master, the court found that the Master correctly articulated the governing legal principles and reasonably exercised his discretion.

The court found no error in the Master’s analysis concerning the proposed substitution or the examination of the proposed representative in multiple capacities.

The appeal was dismissed and costs were fixed against the defendants.

At a Commercial List case conference in a complex civil fraud action involving numerous defendants and related proceedings, the court addressed litigation management issues including settlements, expert reports, discoveries, and trial planning.

Several defendants had reached settlements with the plaintiff.

Discoveries were complete and the matter was ready for trial.

The parties proposed an electronic trial process, which the court approved, directing that the plaintiff initially fund the infrastructure costs but permitting those costs to qualify as allowable disbursements for later costs determination.

The court also endorsed a streamlined trial timetable expected to shorten the originally estimated trial length.

During a Commercial List case conference in complex commercial litigation, the court addressed whether a lengthy upcoming trial should proceed using paper records or an electronic trial format.

The court emphasized the need for the justice system to adapt to modern information technology and criticized resistance within the legal profession to electronic processes.

Considering the scale and document volume of the litigation, the court ordered that the six‑week trial proceed as an electronic trial and directed counsel to prepare and submit a formal e‑trial plan.

The endorsement also addressed discovery scheduling, settlements with certain defendants, and a proposed but abandoned summary judgment motion.