Nafisah Chowdhury

The plaintiff, Arc Compute, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants—two former senior employees and their new company—from retaining or disclosing confidential information, competing with the plaintiff, and interfering with its client and employee relationships.

The court found that the defendants, as fiduciaries, breached both contractual and common law duties by retaining confidential information and soliciting clients and employees for their competing business.

The court granted a modified injunction, requiring the return of all confidential information, the shutdown of the competing company, and a six-month worldwide non-competition order.

The defendant, Ecolab Co., brought a motion seeking an order to compel the plaintiff, Joe Rae, a former employee, to return confidential company documents he had taken without authorization.

Rae, a former Canada Controller, admitted to taking the documents for litigation purposes after his employment was terminated without cause.

Ecolab asserted after-acquired cause and counterclaimed for breach of fiduciary duty and confidence.

The court found the documents to be confidential and held that Rae's self-help approach circumvented proper discovery procedures.

The motion was granted, ordering Rae to return and destroy all copies of the documents, emphasizing that such self-help remedies are not condoned and that the balance of convenience favored Ecolab due to the confidential nature of the information and the potential for irreparable harm.

The plaintiff, a former General Manager, brought a summary judgment motion against his former employer for damages related to a notional Long-Term Incentive (LTI) award, moral/exemplary damages for bad faith conduct during termination, and moving expenses.

The court dismissed the claims for immediate vesting of the LTI award and moving expenses, and awarded moral damages for the employer's untruthful and misleading conduct prior to termination.

The issue of entitlement and quantum of the notional LTI award was deemed to require a mini-trial due to insufficient evidence.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim for constructive dismissal and other related relief.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision to focus on the constructive dismissal claim, as it was central to all other claims (intentional infliction of mental distress, human rights violation, punitive damages).

The court also upheld the motion judge's refusal to grant an adjournment and her approach to summary judgment, noting that the employer had made reasonable efforts to accommodate the appellant, which were frustrated by the appellant's non-compliance.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The court issued procedural directions in a dispute between the parties, granting the respondent leave to file a rebuttal affidavit.

The parties were directed to meet to discuss a potential consent sale of the home, participate in mediation, and a hearing date was scheduled for the application.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 7.06(2) to substitute the plaintiff's litigation guardian, alleging the plaintiff's mother was not acting in her best interests.

The underlying action involved allegations that the defendants manipulated the mentally ill plaintiff into selling her property significantly below market value.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence to support the defendants' claims and characterizing the motion as an improper tactical manoeuvre to disrupt the litigation.

The plaintiffs, successful in their wrongful dismissal and breach of contract action, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendant opposed, arguing the amounts were excessive and duplicative.

The court, considering the complexity of the case, the number of witnesses, and the defendant's unfounded allegations of dishonesty and fraud, found the plaintiffs' requested costs of $131,701.95 to be fair and reasonable and awarded them on a substantial indemnity basis, inclusive of disbursements and HST, plus pre- and post-judgment interest.

The applicant tenant sought an order permitting the assignment of a commercial sublease, arguing the respondent landlord unreasonably withheld consent by demanding a security deposit.

The landlord required the deposit because the assignment would release the current subtenant, who acted as an indemnifier.

The court dismissed the application, finding the landlord's request for a three-month rent security deposit was objectively reasonable to protect its business interests and mitigate risks associated with the loss of the indemnifier.

The plaintiff, former President of the defendant company, brought an action for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause following six years and eight months of employment.

The defendant subsequently alleged after-acquired cause, claiming the plaintiff failed to reimburse the company for personal insurance premiums and made an unauthorized $6.8 million corporate write-off.

The court found the defendant's principals were aware of or willfully blind to the financial arrangements and write-offs, which were regularly disclosed in financial statements.

The court dismissed the allegations of cause and the defendant's counterclaim, awarding the plaintiff 18 months' reasonable notice and the transfer of the disputed life insurance policy.

Following a successful injunction motion, the Plaintiff, Ontario Graphite Ltd., sought substantial indemnity costs of $130,886.09.

The Defendants argued for costs to be reserved or in the cause.

The court found the Plaintiff achieved substantial success on the motion, which involved important issues.

Considering the extensive materials, the utility of the information for the ongoing action, and the Plaintiff's reasonable settlement efforts, the court awarded the Plaintiff $80,000.00 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, to be paid within 60 days.

This award is without prejudice to further submissions on costs at trial.

The plaintiff, a graphite mining company, sought an interlocutory injunction against two former senior executives and their new employer, a competing graphite company.

The plaintiff alleged the former employees breached their fiduciary duties, confidentiality obligations, and non-competition/non-solicitation agreements by surreptitiously securing employment with the competitor and usurping a corporate opportunity regarding a processing facility.

The court granted the injunction, finding a strong prima facie case of breach, irreparable harm due to the highly competitive nature of the industry and potential loss of first-to-market advantage, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to enforce a settlement arising from email exchanges between counsel.

The dispute concerned charitable funds provided to a defendant organization to hold in trust that had not been repaid.

The court found that the emails demonstrated a complete agreement on essential settlement terms and that counsel had ostensible authority to bind the parties.

The defendants’ failure to execute formal settlement documentation did not negate the enforceability of the agreement.

Judgment was granted enforcing the settlement terms, with damages, interest, and costs awarded.

The respondent in an application brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the applicant corporation had admitted it possessed no assets and appeared to have been incorporated solely for the purpose of bringing the application.

The moving party therefore satisfied the first stage of the test demonstrating a basis for security for costs.

The applicant failed to file any responding evidence establishing impecuniosity or demonstrating that its claim had a strong likelihood of success.

The court held that it was just in the circumstances to order staged security for costs totalling $18,271.62 and awarded the moving party partial indemnity costs of the motion.