Peter Danson

The moving party, a franchisor based in India, sought injunctive and mandatory relief against its franchisee and the franchisee's operating principal, including an order for documentary productions, payment of outstanding royalties and an exit fee, a Mareva injunction freezing all defendants' assets, and ancillary examination orders.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety.

The request for documentary productions was premature as affidavits of documents had not yet been exchanged and discoveries had not been conducted.

For monetary relief, the court applied the higher strong prima facie case threshold, which the moving party failed to meet given serious disputed issues concerning personal liability of the individual defendant, royalty rate reductions, and the definition of "net sales." No irreparable harm was established as the franchise had ceased operations and any brand damage was compensable in damages.

The balance of convenience weighed heavily against granting relief that would amount to execution before judgment.

The Mareva injunction was denied for absence of any evidence of risk of asset dissipation.

The court characterized the motion as frivolous and vexatious, relevant to the assessment of costs.

Following a judgment for breach of a commercial lease, the plaintiff landlord sought prejudgment interest and costs.

The court awarded prejudgment interest at the contractual rate of prime plus five percent, rejecting the tenant's argument that his self-represented status constituted an exceptional circumstance.

The court also awarded substantial indemnity costs from the date of the landlord's offer to settle, as the trial judgment exceeded the offer.

Costs were fixed at $128,000, reduced from the claimed amount due to proportionality concerns.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside two default judgments arising from a breach of contract action involving a technology services agreement.

The court applied the established test for setting aside default judgments, considering delay, explanation for the default, and the existence of a triable defence.

The court held that the motion to set aside the first partial default judgment for the liquidated portion of the claim was brought with undue delay and lacked a reasonable explanation or evidence of a meritorious defence.

However, the court accepted a limited explanation regarding the second judgment for the unliquidated portion of damages and found that issues relating to quantum and equitable remedies warranted adjudication on the merits.

The second judgment was set aside on conditions, including payment of the first judgment and costs.

The defendants moved to set aside a registrar’s default judgment and the noting in default.

The motion focused on whether the registrar improperly granted judgment for claims that were not liquidated demands under Rule 19.04(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that claims for loss of chattels, demolition costs, and future rent damages required evidence outside the contract and therefore were not liquidated demands.

Because the registrar may only grant default judgment for liquidated claims, the judgment was irregular and a nullity.

The court set aside both the default judgment and the noting in default without imposing terms, except requiring the defendants to deliver a statement of defence within 30 days.