P.

The plaintiffs, who purchased a dental practice from the defendants, moved for an interim injunction to enforce restrictive covenants preventing the defendants from soliciting former patients and practicing within a 5 km radius.

The defendants consented to a non-solicitation order pending the full interlocutory motion.

The court declined to enjoin the defendant dentist from treating 29 already-booked patients over a four-day period, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm as damages for those specific patients were quantifiable and goodwill had already been lost.

The plaintiffs, who purchased a dental practice from the defendants, moved for an interim injunction to enforce restrictive covenants preventing the defendants from soliciting former patients and practicing within a 5 km radius.

The defendants consented to a non-solicitation order pending the full interlocutory motion.

The court declined to enjoin the defendant dentist from treating 29 already-booked patients over a four-day period, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm as damages for those specific patients were quantifiable and goodwill had already been lost.

A motion brought by the respondent father to reinstate unsupervised access to two younger subject children following the suspension of such access by the child protection agency.

The court determined that while the agency had authority under the discretionary terms of the prior order to suspend access without a further court order, it would have been preferable for the agency to bring a motion.

The court found serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the father's supervision of the children, including evidence that the oldest child was caring for younger siblings while the father remained in his locked room, insufficient food in the home, and the apprehension of another child in the father's care.

The father failed to comply with multiple terms of the court order and provided no evidence of a plan to address the supervision concerns.

The motion for unsupervised access was dismissed.

The defendant, Ali Sobhani, brought a motion to amend his Statement of Defence and counterclaim after partial summary judgment had already been granted, finding him liable for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale and forfeiture of his deposit.

The proposed amendments sought to introduce defences of frustration, impossibility, and force majeure, and to reclaim the deposit.

The motion was dismissed on the grounds of res judicata and issue estoppel, as the issue of liability had been finally determined by Justice Charney.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to warrant re-litigation of liability.

The defendant was charged with driving while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

An investigating officer observed the defendant operating a tractor-trailer and believed he saw the defendant holding a cell phone.

Upon stopping the vehicle, the officer photographed a Motorola device in the cab.

The defendant testified he was holding a water bottle and that the device in question was a scanner used to record delivery details for his employer, not a communication device capable of making phone calls.

The court found reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was holding a hand-held communications device or another object, and dismissed the charge.