Kevin Graham

The court considered whether the plaintiff, Gaurav Tewari, should be permitted to bring a motion for an interlocutory injunction under Rule 40 of the Rules of Civil Procedure against multiple defendants, given his outstanding costs orders from previous litigation.

The court found that it would be unfair to allow further motions until the costs orders were satisfied, despite the plaintiff's claims of significant assets.

The motion was not permitted to proceed at this time.

The appellant, Gaurav Tewari, appealed the decision of the motion judge who permanently stayed his action as a duplicative pleading and an abuse of process.

The motion judge also struck the claim under rules 21.01(3)(c), 21.01(3)(d), and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding it contained no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

Leave to amend was refused.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge’s decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

This decision addresses the costs following a successful motion by the Defendant, Hantover Canada Inc., for a permanent stay of proceedings.

The court had previously ordered a permanent stay, finding the Plaintiff's action duplicative, an abuse of process, and disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $86,843, citing the Plaintiff's unreasonable conduct, non-compliance with court directions (e.g., page limits for submissions), and the serious, unfounded allegations of fraud, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiff, who is self-represented, opposed the costs award, primarily attempting to relitigate the original motion and claiming impecuniosity.

The court found the Plaintiff's conduct unreasonable and sanctioned it with an elevated cost award, noting his history of multiple actions and unpaid cost awards.

While acknowledging impecuniosity can be a factor, the court determined it would not shield the Plaintiff from accountability for his reprehensible conduct.

The court awarded the Defendant $82,000 in substantial indemnity costs.

The defendant, Hantover Canada Inc., brought a motion for a permanent stay of proceedings or, alternatively, to strike the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim.

Hantover argued the action was an abuse of process and a duplicate of another ongoing action (the "Desiccare Action") involving similar factual allegations and claims.

The plaintiff, Guarav Tewari, argued the actions were distinct.

The court found substantial overlap in factual background and issues, concluding the Hantover Action was an abuse of process.

The court also found that the Amended Claim disclosed no reasonable causes of action for breach of contract, trade secret violation, fraudulent inducement, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or anti-trust/anti-competitiveness, as the plaintiff failed to plead material facts establishing a direct relationship or binding agreement with Hantover.

Leave to amend was denied as no viable claim against Hantover was possible and an unjust enrichment claim would likely be statute-barred.

The court ordered the claim permanently stayed.

The plaintiff moved to vary an existing interlocutory injunction to explicitly prohibit the defendants from selling a new software product, FireWire.

The plaintiff alleged that FireWire, like its predecessor FireCat, contained source code and database schema copied from the plaintiff's SilverEye software.

The court found a substantial issue to be tried regarding the alleged copying and varied the injunction to include FireWire in the Canadian market.

The court declined to expand the injunction to the United States market, finding no irreparable harm.