Melvyn Solman

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent an arbitrator from hearing and deciding a challenge to his own jurisdiction until the court determined the plaintiffs' cross-motion to set aside the arbitration agreement.

The plaintiffs had sold two corporations to the defendant for $40 million under a share purchase agreement containing an arbitration clause.

After the transaction closed, disputes arose regarding alleged breaches of warranties and post-closing adjustments.

The plaintiffs subsequently commenced a court action and challenged the arbitrator's jurisdiction in the arbitration proceedings.

The court dismissed the motion for an injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet the first two prongs of the RJR-MacDonald test: there was no serious question to be tried, and no irreparable harm would result from allowing the arbitration to proceed.

The appellant law firm and lawyers brought an application for an order protecting the confidentiality of solicitor-client privileged information of clients who had lodged complaints against them, and for a declaration that the Law Society Act's investigation powers violate sections 7 and 8 of the Charter.

The application judge dismissed the application as premature because the proceedings before the Law Society Tribunal had not yet concluded.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the administrative process should run its course before a Charter challenge is brought to the courts.

The court-appointed interim receiver brought a motion to lift a stay pending appeal of an order approving the sale of the bankrupt companies' assets.

The appellants opposed the sale.

The Court of Appeal found that the appeal had questionable merit and that delaying the sale of the business as a going concern would cause manifest prejudice.

The motion was allowed, the stay was lifted, and the receiver was authorized to complete the sale.