Matti Lemmens

Following an injunction motion where the defendants were largely successful, the defendants sought elevated costs based on the plaintiffs' post-motion conduct.

The defendants alleged the plaintiffs sent misleading correspondence to clients and lawyers claiming they had won the injunction.

The court held that post-motion conduct outside the litigation process is not a valid basis for elevated costs under Rule 57.01.

The court awarded the defendants $25,700, representing one-half of their partial indemnity costs, reflecting their divided success and the late timing of their settlement offer.

The plaintiffs, who operate a specialized First Nations Specific Claims insurance business, brought a motion for an interlocutory and permanent injunction against former employees and independent contractors who started a competing brokerage.

The plaintiffs sought to prohibit the defendants from competing, soliciting clients, and using confidential information.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no non-competition or non-solicitation agreements existed, and the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the defendants misused proprietary information.

The court ordered the defendants to return and delete any of the plaintiffs' confidential information in their possession, as proposed by the defendants.