C. Yamashita

The plaintiff in a defamation action brought a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike the defendant's jury notice and convert the action to the Simplified Procedure.

The action arose from Facebook posts made by the self-represented defendant accusing the plaintiff, a family law lawyer, of child abuse and unethical conduct.

The court dismissed the request for summary judgment, finding that credibility issues required a trial.

However, the court granted the motion to strike the jury notice, noting the defendant's intention to call numerous irrelevant witnesses and the likelihood that a jury trial would be unnecessarily protracted and prejudicial.

The action was converted to a judge-alone trial under the Simplified Procedure.

The plaintiff operated a dry cleaning business under a sub-agreement with the defendants.

The defendants terminated the agreement and seized the business, prompting the plaintiff to obtain an ex parte injunction freezing the proceeds of the business sale.

On the motion to continue the injunction, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm, as the claim was essentially for calculable damages and there was no evidence the defendants would dissipate assets.

The balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The injunction was dissolved and a timetable for the action was set.

The applicant buyer and respondent seller entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for commercial real estate.

The agreement included a financing condition that required the buyer to pay a second deposit 'at the time' of notifying the seller that the condition was waived.

The buyer waived the condition late in the evening on the deadline date but did not provide the second deposit until the following afternoon.

The seller took the position that the agreement was terminated.

The court found that, in the context of the factual matrix and the 'time is of the essence' clause, the parties intended for the deposit to be paid contemporaneously with the waiver.

The buyer's application for specific performance was dismissed, and the seller's application for a declaration that the agreement was void was granted.

The plaintiff, operating as Carey Industries, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from carrying on business under the name 'Steve's Welding & Sandblasting Inc.' The plaintiff had previously operated under the trade name 'Steve's Welding & Sandblasting' for nearly 30 years before changing its name.

The individual defendant, a former owner and employee of the plaintiff, incorporated the competing business shortly after his departure.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found a serious issue to be tried regarding passing off, noting the identical trade name and evidence of actual customer confusion.

The court concluded the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm to its goodwill and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.