Michael Gayed

The plaintiff recruitment agency brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to enforce a restrictive covenant against a former employee and his new employer.

The plaintiff sought to prevent the defendants from contacting any candidates or clients listed in its databases.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the former employee was not a fiduciary and that the restrictive covenant was overly broad, ambiguous, and unenforceable because it was impossible to determine which names were in the databases.

The court also found that the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction.

The parties appealed a master’s decision concerning defence medical examinations in a personal injury action involving a minor who sustained serious injuries after falling from an apartment window.

The master granted leave for a second motion and ordered the plaintiff to attend a defence neuropsychological assessment, with the plaintiff’s mother required to participate by questionnaire and interview.

The master refused to order an in‑home future care cost assessment by a nurse practitioner.

On appeal, the court held the master made no reviewable error, finding the neuropsychological assessment was justified to respond to the plaintiff’s expert evidence and that the second motion was not barred by res judicata or abuse of process.

The refusal to order the in‑home assessment was upheld because the proposed assessor was not a statutory “health practitioner” and the evidence did not demonstrate necessity.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, brought an action in Ontario alleging a conspiracy by the defendants to use fraudulent bankruptcy proceedings in Quebec to defeat the process of the Ontario courts.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action on jurisdictional grounds, and the trustee in bankruptcy moved for a stay because the plaintiff failed to obtain leave under s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter and was not forum non conveniens.

However, the Court allowed the trustee's appeal in part, holding that the action against the trustee must be stayed until the plaintiff obtains leave from the Quebec Superior Court.

The appellant, who was self-represented at trial, appealed a judgment regarding a commercial lease dispute.

He argued the trial judge failed to give him a fair opportunity to present his defence by not allowing him to call a specific witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed this ground, finding the trial judge afforded a reasonable opportunity and properly exercised discretion, as the appellant provided no summary of the proposed relevant evidence.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding damages awarded for the appellant's failure to abide by the lease's closing hours.

The Court found the fine provision oppressive and not a genuine pre-estimate of damages, reducing the judgment by $4,040.50.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a fraudulent conveyance action.

The central issue was whether the trial judge erred in applying the law relating to the burden of explanation.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge correctly concluded the threshold necessary to shift the burden of explanation to the defendant had not been reached, noting the absence of evidence regarding other creditors or the defendant's inability to meet debts at the time of the conveyance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a fraudulent conveyance action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the threshold necessary to shift the burden of explanation to the defendant, as set out in Koop v. Smith, had not been reached due to a lack of evidence regarding other creditors or inability to meet debts.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.