M. Polvere

MediPharm brought an action against Hexo for unpaid invoices totaling $9,802,032.78 under a cannabis resin supply agreement.

Hexo counterclaimed against MediPharm for breach of contract and bad faith, and against Peter Hwang, a former director of the acquired company, for breach of fiduciary duty.

MediPharm and Hwang brought motions for summary judgment.

The court granted the motions, finding no genuine issue for trial.

Hexo failed to adduce evidence of bad faith by MediPharm or self-dealing by Hwang, whose decisions were protected by the business judgment rule.

Hexo was ordered to pay the outstanding invoices.

The applicant municipality sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent municipality from making new connections to its water and sanitary sewer systems, pending the resolution of a dispute over an expired services agreement.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured permitting three specific new development connections.

The injunction was granted on consent for all other new connections, with the three specific developments exempted.

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 plaintiff lender brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a personal guarantee executed by the responding party in connection with a corporate promissory note.

The guarantee was provided as consideration for the lender’s agreement to subordinate its security interest to permit refinancing of a related corporation.

The responding party argued he signed the agreement under time pressure without independent legal advice and raised defences of economic duress and unconscionability.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, finding that valuable consideration supported the guarantee and that the allegations of duress were unsupported by evidence.

Summary judgment was granted enforcing the guarantee.