Matthew Diskin

The respondents, Twitter, brought a motion to strike the applicants' notice of application under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The applicants alleged breach of contract after Twitter refused to sell them advertising space, arguing the refusal violated the duty of good faith, was unconscionable, and breached public policy informed by Charter values of freedom of expression.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants pleaded sufficient facts to state causes of action and that it was not plain and obvious the claims would fail.

The defendants brought a motion for an anti-suit injunction to prevent the plaintiffs from continuing a newly commenced Superior Court action, a Federal Court copyright action, and any future related proceedings worldwide.

The underlying dispute involved a documentary about the making of the plaintiffs' film.

The court stayed the new Superior Court action as an abuse of process, finding it was a collateral attack on previous final judgments.

However, the court declined to issue a broad anti-suit injunction or stay the Federal Court action, deferring to the Federal Court to determine issues of res judicata and issue estoppel within its own jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs brought an action for negligent misrepresentation against the defendants, alleging that steam generators purchased for resale in the Former Soviet Union failed to perform as represented in promotional brochures.

The defendants counterclaimed for unpaid invoices.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' action, finding it was statute-barred under the former Limitations Act because the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of the equipment's deficiencies well outside the six-year limitation period.

The court also found no detrimental reliance on the brochures.

The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed for lack of proof.

The plaintiff former employer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant former employee from working for a competitor and from using confidential information.

The defendant had previously downloaded files before resigning but had returned them pursuant to an earlier interim order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the defendant had conveyed confidential information to his new employer or that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm.

The court also noted the new employer was not a direct competitor in the same market.

Following a successful motion by the defendant to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim with leave to amend, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party sought over $43,000 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle.

The court found the offer to settle was less favourable than the outcome because it did not contemplate leave to amend, and thus awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the moving party at $23,969.22.

The corporate defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim against it for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and to dismiss the oppression remedy claims for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff alleged breach of an oral agreement for equity in a visual effects studio, conversion, fraudulent misrepresentation, and oppression.

The court found the plaintiff failed to plead any material facts establishing that the corporate defendant owed obligations under the agreement or engaged in wrongful conduct.

The statement of claim was struck with leave to amend, and the oppression claims were dismissed as the court lacked jurisdiction over the discontinued corporation.

The plaintiffs, creators of the cult film 'The Room', sued the defendants for copyright infringement, breach of moral rights, misappropriation of personality, passing off, and intrusion upon seclusion over the defendants' unauthorized documentary 'Room Full of Spoons'.

The defendants counterclaimed for damages resulting from an ex parte injunction previously obtained by the plaintiffs that delayed the documentary's release.

The court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims, finding that the documentary's use of clips from 'The Room' constituted fair dealing for the purposes of criticism, review, and news reporting.

The court granted the defendants' counterclaim, awarding US$550,000 in compensatory damages for lost revenue due to the injunction, and CAD$200,000 in punitive damages for the plaintiffs' oppressive and bad faith litigation conduct.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 36 to cross-examine the 89-year-old president of the defendant companies out-of-court before trial, citing his progressive memory decline.

The defendants opposed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction under Rule 36.01(2) because the plaintiffs were not the party introducing the witness's evidence.

The court granted the motion, finding that the witness's evidence in chief had already been captured by affidavit, and securing his cross-examination before trial was necessary to preserve his evidence and ensure fairness.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of defence and counterclaim shortly before the scheduled trial.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the lengthy delay created a presumption of prejudice that could not be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

The court agreed, finding that the defendants failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice.

The court also noted that actual prejudice would result, given the need for further discoveries and the declining memory of the defendants' key witness.

The motion was dismissed, save for an undisputed amendment to reduce the damages claim.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $255,000.

The plaintiff argued the costs should be reserved to the trial judge as the motion's efforts would reduce trial preparation.

The court rejected reserving all costs, noting the motion should not have been brought, but recognized that some work would be useful for trial.

The court issued a hybrid costs order: $100,000 payable forthwith, $77,500 payable in any event of the cause, and $77,500 payable in the cause.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for over $25 million USD in a complex action involving allegations of breach of contract and conspiracy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a surfeit of genuine issues requiring a trial, including highly contested facts regarding pre-contract representations, alleged collusion, and the interpretation of multiple contracts created in a convoluted factual nexus.

The court concluded it would not be in the interests of justice to decide the action summarily.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking to enforce a non-competition clause against a former software developer who resigned to work for a competitor.

The defendants brought cross-motions seeking a declaration that the clause was void.

The court found the matter appropriate for partial summary judgment.

The court held that the non-competition clause was overly broad in its scope of prohibited activities, geographic scope, and temporal scope, and was ambiguous.

The clause was declared unreasonable, unenforceable, and void ab initio.

The plaintiffs, creators of the cult film 'The Room', sought to extend an interlocutory injunction restraining the release of the defendants' documentary 'Room Full of Spoons'.

The defendants moved to dissolve the injunction, arguing material non-disclosure on the initial ex parte motion and failure to meet the test for an injunction.

The court dissolved the injunction, finding the plaintiffs failed to disclose material facts, including that the documentary's use of film excerpts likely constituted fair dealing.

The court also held that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the defendants' right to freedom of expression.

The plaintiffs, comprising 118 limited partnerships, brought an action against the Ontario Power Authority and Ontario for misfeasance in public office and unjust enrichment, seeking $450 million in damages related to changes in the Feed-In Tariff (FIT) program.

The defendants moved to strike the claim.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion, finding the action was an abuse of process because it attempted to relitigate the lawfulness of the FIT program changes, which had already been upheld by the Divisional Court in a prior judicial review application.

The court also held that the statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for either misfeasance in public office or unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs, founders of a family-owned welding supply business, sued for wrongful dismissal after the business was sold to the manufacturer whose products they distributed.

The manufacturer argued that a term should be implied that the plaintiffs would retire upon the sale of the business given their senior age.

The court rejected this argument, finding that a term of reasonable notice is implied by law in employment contracts.

The court awarded 18 months' notice based on the plaintiffs' actual compensation, resulting in a joint and several damages award of over $1.1 million against the manufacturer and the business.

Following the dismissal of its application for the enforcement of letters rogatory, the applicant argued that no costs should be awarded because the application raised novel issues of law.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the applicant was a commercial entity pursuing its own private interests in foreign litigation, not a public interest litigant.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful respondent but reduced the quantum claimed from $32,647.71 to $18,189.46, noting that the respondent had already received a substantial costs award on an earlier, nearly identical application.

The applicant, an American pharmaceutical company, sought to enforce amended letters rogatory issued by a United States District Court to compel testimony and documentary evidence from the respondent, a federal Crown corporation, for use in foreign litigation.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing that it enjoyed Crown immunity.

The court held that the presumption of Crown immunity under s. 17 of the federal Interpretation Act prevented the enforcement of letters rogatory against a Crown agent, as the provincial Evidence Act does not bind the federal Crown.

Furthermore, the court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the legal standard for enforcing letters rogatory, as the evidence sought was not necessary for trial and had already been obtained through an Access to Information Act request.

The application was dismissed.