L.C. Templeton

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prohibit the defendant from challenging the validity of a U.S. patent owned by the plaintiffs, relying on a 'no challenge' clause in a prior settlement agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case because the defendant's U.S. subsidiary, which was challenging the patent, was not a party to the agreement.

Furthermore, the court held that the restrictive covenant was not reasonable in the public interest, as it would prevent a potentially valid defence and run counter to the public policy favouring free competition.

The applicant, charged with impaired operation by drug and taking a motor vehicle without consent, brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel.

The court applied the three-part test for a Rowbotham order.

While the applicant had been refused Legal Aid, the court found he failed to establish impecuniosity, as he had the ability to work and earn funds before trial.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant's right to a fair trial would not be materially compromised without counsel, given the straightforward nature of the case, his cognitive abilities, and the trial judge's duty to assist an unrepresented accused.

The application was dismissed.