Laurent Massam

This costs endorsement followed the dismissal of the defendants' joint motion to strike the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim.

The plaintiffs, having successfully defended the motion, sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the motion was largely duplicative of a prior, successful motion to strike the original statement of claim.

The court determined that while the subject matter overlapped, the motion against the amended pleading did not constitute a "serial attack" justifying substantial indemnity costs.

Instead, costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $17,404.18 (including fees, HST, and disbursements), payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs within 30 days.

The defendants brought a joint motion to strike out the amended statement of claim without leave to amend, and for an order dismissing the action, alleging insufficient material facts to support claims of misappropriation and misuse of confidential information.

The court reviewed the amended pleading against its prior decision, which had struck the original statement of claim with leave to amend due to vagueness.

The court found that the amended statement of claim sufficiently particularized the types of confidential information, the products to which they related, and the alleged instances and methods of misappropriation and misuse by each defendant, satisfying the minimum level of material fact disclosure required for such claims.

The motion was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the defendants to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim, with leave to amend.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the claims were baseless and important to their reputations.

The court denied substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiffs.

Instead, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale to both groups of defendants, fixing specific amounts for fees and disbursements, emphasizing that costs are not a mechanical exercise and must be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party.

The plaintiffs, Evertz Technologies Limited and Evertz Microsystems Limited, brought an action alleging theft of confidential information by former employees and competing businesses.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim in its entirety, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient particulars regarding the alleged confidential information, its misuse, and its incorporation into the defendants' products.

The court found that the statement of claim, even with supplemental particulars, did not meet the minimum level of material fact disclosure required for claims of misappropriation and misuse of confidential information.

Consequently, the statement of claim was struck out, but the plaintiffs were granted leave to serve an amended statement of claim within 30 days.

Bombardier Transportation Canada Inc. (BTC) sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent Metrolinx (MTX) from terminating a $770 million contract for light rail vehicles (LRVs) due to alleged material default, pending the completion of a mandatory dispute resolution process.

BTC also sought to remove the Engineer, Jeffrey Rankin, for alleged partiality.

The court found that the contract's dispute resolution process applied to MTX's right to terminate for material default.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court determined there was a serious issue to be tried, BTC would suffer irreparable harm (loss of reputation, future business, supply chain disruption, and employee expertise), and the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, prohibiting MTX from terminating the contract until the Dispute Review Board (DRB) ruled on the default, and ordered the injunction to be nunc pro tunc to stay cure periods.

The issue of the Engineer's impartiality was referred to the DRB.

A professional accounting body sought a statutory injunction under s. 30(1) of the Certified General Accountants Act, 2010 to prevent the respondents from using the designation “CGMA” (Chartered Global Management Accountant) in Ontario.

The applicant argued the designation contravened s. 26 of the Act by incorporating the protected initials “CGA” and implying the holder was a Certified General Accountant.

The court applied modern statutory interpretation principles and the rule that statutes creating professional monopolies must be strictly construed.

It held that the specific quoted designations protected by the statute did not extend to the acronym CGMA and that the designation did not imply a Certified General Accountant.

The court found the applicant failed to establish a contravention of the Act on a balance of probabilities.