Thomas J. Davis

A municipality sought a declaration that it was not bound by an arbitration clause in a 1993 participation agreement governing a landfill operation, arguing that an amended environmental compliance approval issued in 2019 voided the agreement.

The respondent municipality moved to stay the application in favour of arbitration.

The court applied the two-part framework from Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp. and found that the technical prerequisites for a mandatory stay were met and that neither of the exceptions raised by the applicant—undue delay or suitability for summary judgment—applied on a clear case standard.

The court granted the stay and ordered the matter to arbitration.

The court considered a motion for judgment based on the defendants’ failure to respond to requests to admit under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff sought judgment for monies allegedly owing for asbestos removal services.

The court allowed the defendants a tightly timetabled opportunity to move to withdraw their deemed admissions, citing fairness and the lack of non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court also addressed the issue of corporate representation, refusing further leave for the corporate defendant to be represented by a non-lawyer.

The applicant, Edgewater Park Lodge Inc., sought a permanent injunction and statutory damages against the respondents, Robert and Carol Cadman, for operating a restaurant under the name “Red Canoe Family Restaurant,” which was found to be deceptively similar to the applicant’s “Red Canoe Restaurant.” The court found that the similarity of the names caused or was likely to cause confusion and granted a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from using the name or any similar name, as well as ordering statutory damages and the removal of all related social media and advertising.

The defendant moved to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) registered against his property, which was issued following a failed real estate transaction where the plaintiffs sought specific performance.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs made full and fair disclosure in their ex parte CPL application, the property was sufficiently unique to support a claim for specific performance, and the alternative claim for damages did not warrant discharging the CPL under the Courts of Justice Act.