Peter W.G. Carey

Following a previous decision, the parties reached an agreement on the costs of the motion.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendant $10,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, in accordance with the parties' agreement.

The plaintiff employers brought an urgent motion for an interim interlocutory injunction to restrain a former employee from disclosing confidential information, soliciting clients, and competing with their live events business.

The court applied the RJR-Macdonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any potential damages could be quantified and compensated financially.

The balance of convenience favoured the defendant, as an injunction would prevent him from earning a livelihood in his chosen field.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to a full hearing on a complete record.

The plaintiff, a food and beverage operator, sued the defendant hotel for unlawful and bad faith termination of their commercial leases and service agreements.

The hotel terminated the agreements during the COVID-19 pandemic, alleging unpaid rent and other breaches, while secretly negotiating with a replacement operator.

The court found the termination was unlawful and in bad faith, as the hotel wrongfully withheld deposits, owed the plaintiff money, and unreasonably refused to assist with a government rent subsidy application.

The court awarded the plaintiff reliance damages for its capital investments and employee termination costs, less a set-off for the hotel's proven counterclaim.

The plaintiff franchisor requested the immediate scheduling of a motion for injunctive relief on the basis of urgency during the COVID-19 pandemic, which the defendant franchisees opposed.

The court found that the dispute, which centered on unpaid royalty fees and had been ongoing since September 2019, did not meet the criteria for urgent scheduling under the court's COVID-19 notices.

The request for immediate scheduling was denied, and a timetable was set for the motions to be heard at a later date.

The applicant sought a declaration under the oppression remedy of the Business Corporations Act that he was the legal and beneficial owner of 20% of the shares in the respondent company.

The shares were previously owned by his deceased spouse, who died intestate.

The respondents refused to transfer the shares, alleging that the applicant and his deceased spouse had breached a trust agreement regarding a real estate transaction years earlier.

The court granted the application, finding that the applicant was absolutely entitled to inherit the shares under the Succession Law Reform Act, and that the alleged breach of trust was both unrelated to the share entitlement and statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendants moved to remove the plaintiffs' solicitors of record, Hodder Barristers.

The defendants alleged that the plaintiffs' counsel had previously acted for a different plaintiff in related litigation against the current plaintiff, and that counsel would be required to give evidence at trial regarding alleged collusion and abuse of process.

The court found that while the administration of justice would not be brought into disrepute merely by counsel acting for the plaintiffs, there was a real likelihood that counsel would be called as a witness regarding discussions he had with the plaintiff during the related litigation.

The motion to remove the solicitors of record was granted.

The applicant, as Note Trustee of the Maple Trust, brought a motion for an order approving a marketing and sale process for the trust's assets following an Event of Default.

The motion was contested by a party who argued that any sale must obtain prior court approval.

The court approved the sale process but ordered that it include a provision requiring prior court approval for any transaction, applying the Soundair principles, to ensure the best possible price is obtained without unnecessary delay.