2 total
Facially incoherent claim dismissed as an abuse of process.
On a Rule 2.1.01 screening request, the court dismissed the action against one defendant because the statement of claim was facially incoherent and disclosed no viable cause of action against that defendant.
The pleading consisted only of a one-page description of undated events relating to an apparent rental and eviction, without full party names or coherent allegations of wrongdoing.
The court held that there were no particulars of any breach or duty owed by the condominium corporation and that, in the absence of any coherent basis on which the claim could succeed, the proceeding was an abuse of process.
No costs were ordered.
Mandatory franchise injunction denied for lack of strong prima facie case.
The franchisor moved for interlocutory injunctive relief to compel a former franchisee to resume operating a pharmacy under its banner, alternatively to deliver up possession of the premises, or to refrain from operating any non-franchised business there, together with relief respecting private label products and intellectual property.
The court held that, in substance, the requested relief was mandatory because it would require the responding parties to unwind an existing arrangement with a new franchisor and take positive steps to resume the prior franchise relationship.
Applying the mandatory injunction standard under the RJR-MacDonald framework as refined by Canadian Broadcasting Corp., the court found no strong prima facie case because the rescission issues under the Arthur Wishart Act raised non-frivolous questions for trial, including whether changes to a loyalty points program were material changes.
The court also found no irreparable harm because lost profits and market effects were measurable from extensive historical sales data, and held that the balance of convenience favoured the responding parties.
The motion was dismissed.
