M. Chapman

The applicant developer sought an order requiring the respondents to remove a large shed built on their property, alleging it violated a restrictive covenant requiring the developer's approval for ancillary buildings.

The respondents argued they had obtained approval or that the covenant was unenforceable.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the restrictive covenant was vague, uncertain, and unenforceable because it gave the developer unfettered discretion to waive or modify restrictions without any defined criteria, failing to establish a valid building scheme.

The applicant, operating a tree-service business as a sole proprietor under the name 'Arbor-Aide', brought an application alleging the respondent corporation, 'Arbor Aid Ltd.', passed off its business as the applicant's contrary to the Trade-Marks Act and common law.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to establish the requisite goodwill in the respondent's geographic area of operation.

Furthermore, the court found no likelihood of confusion given the descriptive nature of the names, visual differences, and distinct business models, and concluded there was no evidence of actual or potential damages.