Who is Peter E.J. Wells?

Peter E.J. Wells is an Ontario lawyer with 4 court cases on record from 2015 to 2018.

What courts has Peter E.J. Wells appeared in?

Peter E.J. Wells has appeared in Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has Peter E.J. Wells handled?

Peter E.J. Wells has 4 cases on record from 2015 to 2018.

What judges has Peter E.J. Wells appeared before?

Peter E.J. Wells has most frequently appeared before Justice James F. Diamond, Justice Perell, Justice Thomas J. Carey.

Peter E.J. Wells

4 total

AgriMarine Holdings Inc. v. Akvatech AS, 2018 ONSC 7768

The applicants sought a declaration that the respondent breached a Letter Agreement and had no valid license to market and sell the applicants' fish-rearing technology.

The court found that neither party had breached the agreement, as time of the essence had been suspended and not properly reinstated.

The parties had mutually agreed to terminate the agreement, triggering the respondent's right to a refund or a license.

The court held that the respondent validly exercised its right to acquire the license, which was certain and enforceable.

The application was dismissed.

SCJDec 31, 2018

Applicant Counsel

Sernova v. Shapiro, 2017 ONSC 5308

The applicant brought an application under Rule 14.05(3) seeking declarations concerning the ownership of patent applications related to a product developed under a Consulting Agreement.

The respondents brought a motion to stay the application, arguing that a different agreement with an Alberta forum selection clause applied, and that material facts were in dispute making the matter unsuitable for an application.

The court dismissed the motion to stay, finding it premature to determine whether the issues were suitable for an application or if the forum clause applied before the application record was complete, allowing the motion to be renewed at the hearing of the application.

SCJSep 8, 2017

Respondent Counsel

Nlogic Inc. v. Microtherapy Inc., 2017 ONSC 722

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent breached their software distribution agreement by developing and marketing a competing radio scheduling product prior to the end of the agreement's winding-up period.

The applicant also sought a springboard injunction.

The court interpreted the agreement and found that it did not prohibit the respondent from developing its own product for the US market or marketing a competitive product during the notice or winding-up periods.

The court also found no breach of the duty of honest performance by the applicant, but ultimately dismissed the application as the respondent had not breached the agreement.

SCJJan 31, 2017

Applicant Counsel

Ipex Inc. v. Lubrizol Advanced Materials Canada, Inc. et al., 2015 ONSC 6580

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to preclude the defendants from advancing certain grounds in a second summary judgment motion that largely repeated arguments previously rejected by another motions judge.

The defendants argued that a renewed motion was justified in light of the Supreme Court of Canada’s clarification of the summary judgment framework in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The court held that Hryniak applies retroactively and does not permit parties to reopen prior summary judgment determinations where appeal routes have been exhausted.

The court also found that issue estoppel and abuse of process barred relitigation of the same issues, particularly where the alleged “new” evidence had been available at the time of the first motion.

The plaintiff’s motion was granted, limiting the scope of the defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment.

Respondent Counsel