4 total
The court resolved cross-motions for undertakings and refusals, ordering mutual disclosure of relevant documents while upholding litigation privilege over an investigative report.
The plaintiff, CLC Tree Services Ltd., brought a motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery, alleging that the City of London granted preferential treatment in awarding arboricultural and vegetation management contracts to Davey Tree Expert Co. of Canada, Limited to the exclusion of CLC.
The defendant, the City of London, brought a cross-motion seeking answers to undertakings and refusals from CLC's examination, arguing that CLC's allegations were based on rumours and unnamed sources and that the scope of the claim needed to be defined.
The court addressed numerous undertakings and refusals, emphasizing the importance of parties working collaboratively to resolve discovery disputes and the broad scope of oral discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court granted many of CLC's requests for disclosure while also ordering CLC to provide greater particularity regarding its damages claims and the factual basis for its allegations.
The court granted interim orders for confidentiality and login codes but declined to enforce a broad non-competition covenant pending a full hearing.
This decision concerns an urgent case conference in which the plaintiffs, One World Logistics Group Corp. and Makstrans Logistic Ltd., sought interim injunctive relief against the defendant, Maksim Sotiri, following his termination from employment.
The plaintiffs alleged breaches of non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality covenants.
The court declined to grant an interim order restraining competition, citing the breadth of the covenant and the compensability of damages.
Orders were made regarding confidentiality, provision of login codes, and a temporary restraint on further complaints to regulatory bodies pending a full hearing.
The matter was scheduled for a full injunction motion.
Franchise agreement validly rescinded due to material deficiencies in disclosure document; $306,581 in compensation awarded.
The franchisee applied to rescind a franchise agreement under s. 6(2) of the Arthur Wishart Act, alleging material deficiencies in the franchisor's disclosure document.
The court found that the franchisor failed to disclose complete financial statements, the absence of a head lease, a negotiated agreement to lease, and the fact that the location was the franchise's first non-mall setting.
These omissions effectively deprived the franchisee of the opportunity to make an informed investment decision, amounting to a failure to provide a disclosure document.
The application was allowed, the rescission was declared valid, and the franchisor and its associate were ordered to pay $306,581 in statutory compensation, with the franchisee's loss of income claim referred to a master.
Tenant awarded partial indemnity costs for relief from forfeiture application despite lease provision favoring landlord.
Following the settlement of an urgent application for relief from forfeiture arising from a commercial lease dispute during the COVID-19 pandemic, the court determined the entitlement to costs.
The landlord sought to rely on a lease provision granting it substantial indemnity costs for tenant defaults.
The court declined to enforce the contractual costs provision, finding the landlord acted precipitously in attempting to lock out the tenant who had sought accommodation for pandemic-related financial strain.
The applicant tenant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $43,049.10, to be set off against deferred rent payments.
