L. Armstrong

The court denied the moving parties' request for leave to bring urgent motions to vacate claims for lien and certificates of action under section 44 of the Construction Act, finding no true urgency.

The endorsement criticizes the excessive length and lack of organization in the motion materials and highlights the improper use of the court’s urgent motion process.

However, the court allowed the moving parties a limited opportunity to proceed in writing, subject to strict conditions, to avoid jeopardizing an upcoming refinancing.

The applicant sought specific performance of three agreements of purchase and sale for land, conditional on consent severance approval.

The respondent purported to terminate the agreements, arguing the municipality would not consent to severance.

The court found that the respondent had a good faith duty to apply for consent severance, which it failed to do initially.

However, a "without prejudice" application was later made and rejected by the municipality.

The court held that the agreements explicitly required consent severance, not a plan of subdivision, and that Schedule A superseded Clause 15 regarding compliance with the Planning Act.

Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to compel the respondent to pursue a more expensive and time-consuming plan of subdivision.

The application for specific performance was dismissed, but the applicant was entitled to the return of their deposits with interest.

The applicants, Stress-Crete Limited and King Luminaire Company Inc., sought a permanent injunction against their former employee, Stephen Harriman, to prevent him from breaching non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality clauses in his employment agreement by working for a direct competitor.

The court found the non-competition clause ambiguous and unenforceable due to its overly broad geographical scope.

However, the non-solicitation and confidentiality provisions were deemed clear, reasonable, and enforceable.

The court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the applicants from the use of confidential information and solicitation, and that the balance of convenience favored the applicants regarding these latter provisions.

The motion for a permanent injunction was granted in part, restraining Harriman from soliciting former clients and employees and from using confidential information for two years.