Matthew J. Kim

The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction to enforce non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements against a former shareholder, alleging breach of contract and misuse of confidential information.

The court dismissed the injunction motion, finding insufficient evidence of irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favored the defendants.

The court noted that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate actual breach or imminent harm, and that the requested relief was an overreach that would unfairly impact the defendant's livelihood.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' application to enforce a Buyer's Representation Agreement, the successful respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $38,293.35.

The applicants challenged the hourly rates, expert fees, and time claimed.

The court found the hourly rates and expert fees reasonable, but deducted time spent on case conferences related solely to the respondent's witnesses' availability.

The applicants were ordered to pay $35,000 in costs.

The moving party, former counsel for the applicant, brought a motion for a charging order pursuant to section 34 of the Solicitors Act for unpaid legal fees.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing there was no evidence to justify the order.

The court applied the three-part test for a charging order and found that the property was preserved through the law firm's instrumentality and that the applicant had no intention of paying the outstanding fees.

The motion was granted and costs were awarded to the moving party.

A real estate agent brought an application for a 2.5 percent commission on a property purchased by the respondent through another agent, relying on a Buyer's Representation Agreement (BRA).

The respondent brought a cross-application to declare the BRA void, raising the defence of non est factum.

The court found that the agent misrepresented the fundamental nature of the BRA to the respondent's father by stating it only applied to a specific property, not any property purchased within four months.

The court held the respondent was not careless in relying on her father's explanation and signing without reading.

The BRA was declared void ab initio and the agent's application was dismissed.

At a case management hearing, the court provided procedural directions for an upcoming two-day trial.

Due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, the respondent's father, residing in Ukraine, was unable to travel to Canada.

The court ordered a hybrid trial, allowing the father to testify via video while other witnesses would testify in person, subject to courtroom availability and pandemic restrictions.

The applicant father brought a motion for overnight access to the parties' 3-year-old child.

The respondent mother opposed overnight access, citing a history of domestic violence and the father's lack of parenting experience, and brought a cross-motion for daytime access only.

The court granted the father's motion in part, ordering a temporary schedule of mid-week and alternate weekend overnight access, finding no compelling reason to deny overnights pending trial and noting the father's successful recent overnight visits.

The mother's cross-motion was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

A custody and access trial concerning a two-year-old child.

The mother sought sole custody with limited access for the father (8 hours on Saturdays for at least 8 months).

The father sought joint custody with alternate weekend access from Friday evening to Monday morning, plus mid-week access.

The court found that joint custody was not appropriate due to the parties' inability to communicate effectively.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother but significantly expanded the father's access beyond what the mother proposed, finding that the mother had been unnecessarily restrictive.

The court phased in overnight access over a short period, ultimately ordering alternate weekend access from Friday after day care to Monday morning, with mid-week access to be determined at a further hearing.