L. Brazil

Snapclarity Inc. brought an urgent motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain its former CEO and her new company from using an online mental health intake assessment questionnaire and competing against it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Snapclarity failed to establish a strong prima facie case for breach of the non-compete clause or copyright infringement, as the questionnaire was likely owned by the former CEO's consulting firm.

Furthermore, Snapclarity failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as its platform had already been sold and integrated into another company's product, and the balance of convenience favoured the responding parties.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against the defendants for allegedly conspiring to fix prices of cathode ray tubes (CDTs) and colour picture tubes (CPTs).

The plaintiff asserted causes of action under the Competition Act and for common law unlawful means conspiracy, including claims on behalf of umbrella purchasers.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, an identifiable class existed, the claims raised common issues, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the litigation plan was workable.

The motion for certification was granted.

The moving party, Cobra Power Inc., sought costs following its successful motion to refer the action to a Master and the responding party's abandonment of a stay motion.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs for the reference motion and full indemnity costs for the stay motion, finding that the responding party engaged in unreasonable delay tactics and made groundless, shrill allegations of professional misconduct against opposing counsel.

The court addressed procedural disputes arising in a construction-related action where the plaintiff sought repayment of funds allegedly paid for electrical work not performed, while the defendant denied liability and counterclaimed.

A prior order had transferred the matter to Toronto and contemplated referral to a master managing related construction lien proceedings.

The plaintiff appealed the venue decision and sought a stay pending appeal while simultaneously attempting to schedule a summary judgment motion.

The court emphasized that lawyers’ duty to fearlessly advance their client’s case must be exercised consistently with fairness, cooperation, and the goals of accessible civil justice.

To resolve procedural gridlock, the court ordered that the plaintiff’s motion for a stay pending appeal and the defendant’s motion to refer the matter to the master be heard together on an expedited basis.