Michael A. Polvere

The plaintiff franchisee brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant franchisor from acting on a Notice of Expiration of a restaurant franchise agreement.

The franchise agreement explicitly stated there was no right to renew after the initial 10-year term.

The plaintiff argued it was entitled to an extension based on alleged oral representations and breaches of the duty of fair dealing under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The court found the requested relief was a mandatory injunction requiring a strong prima facie case.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff's case was weak, any potential remedy would likely be in damages rather than an order compelling renewal, and the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm.

The appellants, comprising an individual and two corporations, appealed a lower court decision that dismissed their application for specific performance.

They sought to compel the respondent, a separated spouse, to execute a Non-Solicitation and Non-Competition Agreement (NCA) as part of a corporate share sale.

The application judge found no evidence that the respondent had agreed to the NCA.

The respondent cross-appealed the costs award from the lower court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's finding regarding the NCA.

Leave to cross-appeal costs was denied, as the appellate court found the original costs award to be reasonable despite a potential misdirection by the application judge.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff contractor's action for unpaid 'extras' on a construction project.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the limitation period for unpaid construction invoices begins to run after a reasonable time for delivery and payment has passed, which in this case was more than two years before the action was commenced.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff had no contractual right to demand final payment because it failed to provide a required statutory declaration confirming that all sub-trades had been paid.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The applicants sought an order for specific performance to compel the respondent to execute transaction documents for the sale of her shares in their jointly held companies.

The respondent refused to sign a Non-Solicitation and Non-Competition Agreement (NCA), arguing she never agreed to it.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while an NCA is commercially reasonable and standard in such transactions, there was no evidence that the respondent or her counsel had actually agreed to include it in the share purchase agreement.

The plaintiff, Crawford Packaging Inc., brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction against its former salesperson, Orazio Dorata, and corporate defendants, alleging breach of non-competition, non-solicitation, and employee poaching clauses in Dorata's employment contract, as well as failure to return company property.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to meet the high threshold for a quia timet injunction, as no actual harm had occurred, and any future harm was speculative.

The court also noted that contractual provisions deeming fiduciary duty or irreparable harm are ineffective if not supported by legal standards.

The plaintiff rental car company moved for summary judgment against the defendant renter for damages to a rented vehicle.

The vehicle was involved in a rollover accident while being driven by the defendant's son, an unauthorized driver with a suspended license.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding liability, as the unauthorized use invalidated the optional collision damage waiver regardless of whether the defendant consented to her son driving.

However, the court declined to grant summary judgment on the quantum of damages, finding the plaintiff's evidence insufficient, and ordered a hearing for the assessment of damages.

The appellants, vendors of a commercial farm property, appealed a partial summary judgment order that declared the agreement of purchase and sale valid but denied specific performance and ordered a trial on damages.

The appellants had refused to close the transaction, alleging unconscionability, non est factum, collusion and conspiracy.

The motion judge made adverse credibility findings against the appellants, concluding they suffered from sellers' remorse.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in granting partial summary judgment when genuine issues of fact and credibility existed that were inextricably intertwined with the counterclaim and third party claim against real estate agents, creating a risk of duplicative or inconsistent findings.

The appellant appealed a decision granting the respondent a declaration that a lease to a competing fitness facility was void and an injunction preventing the appellant from performing development services.

The core dispute concerned the interpretation of a non-competition agreement and a right of first refusal executed in connection with the sale of fitness facilities.

The application judge found that the non-competition agreement took precedence over the right of first refusal and prevented the lease.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred by relying on negotiations to interpret the contracts and by misunderstanding the factual matrix.

The court held that the plain language of the two agreements, read together, permitted the lease while requiring compliance with the non-competition agreement and the right of first refusal.

Dr. Grochowski, an emergency room physician, sued Adam Young for defamation over online comments published by The Sarnia Observer.

Young's comments alleged Grochowski prescribed highly addictive medication without close inspection.

The court found the statements defamatory, rejecting Young's defenses of justification, fair comment, and responsible communication.

The court awarded Dr. Grochowski $12,500 in general damages plus prejudgment interest, and $2,000 in costs for a pleading amendment.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal to the Divisional Court after her appeal was quashed by the Court of Appeal for being in the wrong jurisdiction.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought an order declaring the appellant a vexatious litigant.

The court dismissed the appellant's motion, noting that the Court of Appeal had already refused to transfer the file.

The court also dismissed the respondent's motion, finding that the appellant's confusion regarding appellate jurisdiction did not make her a vexatious litigant.

The appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal to the Divisional Court and to transfer the proceeding, after the Court of Appeal quashed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to have the appellant declared a vexatious litigant.

The court dismissed the appellant's motion, noting the Court of Appeal had already dismissed her request to transfer the file.

The court also dismissed the respondent's motion, finding the appellant's conduct, while confusing, did not meet the threshold of a vexatious litigant.

The applicant, GoodLife Fitness Centres Inc., sought an injunction to enforce a non-competition agreement (NCA) against the respondents, Rock Developments Inc. and Rocco Tullio.

The NCA was executed when GoodLife acquired Tullio's previous fitness business.

The respondents subsequently entered into a lease agreement with Movati Athletic, a competing fitness facility, for a property that was a specific concern during the original negotiations.

The court found that the respondents breached the NCA by having a 'business interest' in the competitor and providing 'development services' to facilitate the competing gym's establishment.

The court rejected arguments that a Right of First Refusal (ROFR) permitted the lease or that the NCA was unenforceable due to its broad territorial scope, emphasizing the clear intent of the parties.

The application for an injunction was granted.

The appellant appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Justice for an amount less than $50,000.

The Court of Appeal determined that such an appeal falls within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court, not the Court of Appeal, pursuant to section 19(1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court clarified that jurisdiction is determined by the amount awarded, not the amount claimed.

The appeal was quashed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Canada Company, sought summary judgment against the defendant, George Bryan, for damages to a rented vehicle.

The vehicle was stolen and subsequently involved in an accident.

The defendant argued that a damage waiver in the rental agreement applied and that the plaintiff's claimed damages were excessive and some credit card payments unauthorized.

The court found that the defendant failed to fulfill contractual obligations, specifically by not returning the original ignition key and not ensuring the vehicle ignition was off at the time of theft, thereby invalidating the damage waiver.

The court also determined that the damages claimed were not excessive and the credit card charges were authorized.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for outstanding payments for solar panel installation work and dismissal of the defendants' counterclaim.

The defendants counterclaimed for damages due to alleged negligence and breach of contract by the plaintiffs.

The court granted partial summary judgment in favour of two individual plaintiffs (Ian Poss and Scott Oliver) for their claims, dismissing the counterclaims against them, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding their work.

However, summary judgment was denied for the corporate plaintiffs due to substantial factual conflicts and credibility issues requiring a full trial.

The court also declined to pierce the corporate veil of the defendant corporations.

Following a Court of Appeal decision remitting the issue of damages to the Superior Court, the plaintiff sought damages under the Arthur Wishart Act after rescinding a franchise agreement due to the franchisor's failure to provide a disclosure document.

The court assessed the plaintiff's claims for lost income, non-competition covenant compliance, and office expenses.

The court awarded $22,317, covering lease payments, office insurance, and a portion of the claimed lost income, while dismissing claims for equipment costs and lost income related to the non-competition covenant.

The defendant brought a motion to remove Siskinds LLP as counsel of record for the plaintiffs, citing conflict of interest and 'lawyer as witness' concerns.

The dispute involved an internal corporate struggle over share ownership and director status in LEO Canada Inc. Siskinds LLP had acted as corporate counsel during the events giving rise to the dispute and was now acting as litigation counsel for both the corporation and one of the disputing shareholders.

The court found significant conflict of interest concerns, noting that lawyers from the firm were likely to be necessary witnesses regarding the preparation and execution of contested corporate documents.

The court ordered the removal of Siskinds LLP, directed that the corporation and the individual plaintiff obtain separate representation, and established a procedure for documentary disclosure.

An appeal concerning the calculation of a bonus payable to a subordinate debt and equity financing fund upon the sale of a borrower company.

The lower court determined the bonus at $242,552.79 based on net proceeds excluding $55.125 million in debt created through a pre-sale reorganization.

The appellate court reversed in part, holding that the $55.125 million should be included in the bonus calculation as it formed part of the proceeds of sale and was created in violation of the loan agreement's consent requirement.

The court upheld the lower court's rejection of arguments that the bonus contravened the criminal rate of interest, was unconscionable, or was ultra vires the lender's statutory mandate.

The bonus was recalculated at $793,800.48.

The defendant brought a motion to find the plaintiffs in civil contempt for allegedly breaching an interim order that mandated joint operation of a corporation, restricted disclosure of litigation details, and required the sharing of corporate information and financial reports.

The court found that the plaintiffs intentionally breached the order by failing to provide access to corporate records and failing to deliver monthly financial reports, resulting in formal findings of contempt.

The court also found the plaintiff breached the disclosure restrictions but exercised its discretion not to make a formal contempt finding on that ground.

The allegations of failing to jointly operate the corporation were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a damages decision from the Superior Court of Justice.

The motion judge had declined to award damages due to the appellant's non-compliance with a pre-trial conference order regarding the filing of evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that although the appellant did not comply with the order, she had filed an affidavit with supporting documentation and a factum detailing her damages claim.

The appellate court held that the motion judge should have afforded the appellant an opportunity to file compliant evidence to support her claim.