Danny Gurizzan

The plaintiff, an acquirer bank, sought an interlocutory mandatory injunction to enforce its contractual right to audit the defendant, a payment operator, after the defendant terminated their agreement and invoked a de-conversion process.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for a mandatory injunction requiring the plaintiff to release funds it had moved from settlement accounts to reserve accounts, alleging breach of trust.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding a strong prima facie case that the audit right survived during de-conversion and that the loss of the right constituted irreparable harm.

The defendant's cross-motion was dismissed as it failed to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm, and there was no basis to find the settlement accounts were trust funds.

In a family trial arising from a marriage breakdown involving four children, the court resolved disputed issues of separation date, custody and access, child support, spousal support, income, and equalization.

The court preferred the respondent’s evidence on key credibility disputes, fixed the separation date at September 19, 2012, and declined to adopt a parallel parenting regime despite the respondent’s request.

Sole custody remained with the applicant, with structured access and mutual information-sharing terms.

Both parties’ current incomes were found to be zero, child support was fixed at zero, section 7 expenses were ordered shared equally, and the applicant’s entitlement to compensatory spousal support was recognized but quantified at $1 per year pending review.

On property issues, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent an equalization payment of $10,380.21.