Rahul Shastri

The plaintiff sought continuation of an ex parte interim injunction and a permanent injunction to prevent nearby blasting associated with residential construction, alleging vibrations would disrupt the alignment of satellite earth stations used for communications services.

The court applied the standard requiring a very strong probability of grave future harm before granting injunctive relief.

Expert evidence from the defendants indicated an extremely low probability of damage under the blasting plan, while the plaintiff’s evidence was largely speculative and lacked detailed technical analysis.

The court concluded the plaintiff failed to establish a strong probability of harm on the balance of probabilities.

The motion to continue the injunction was therefore dismissed.

The applicants sought an order permitting their accountants to finalize draft closing statements following the sale of shares in a technology company.

The respondents argued that an adjustment for allegedly obsolete inventory should be considered and requested appointment of a third accountant under the purchase agreement.

The court found that the respondents failed to raise the inventory issue within the contractual 15‑day period for commenting on draft closing statements and had not engaged their own accountants to trigger the dispute‑resolution mechanism.

The court rejected arguments of waiver and declined to grant equitable relief from forfeiture under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act, finding the respondents’ conduct unreasonable and unsupported by evidence of a valid claim.

The application was granted and the draft closing statements were ordered finalized.

Following dismissal of a motion for an injunction seeking to enforce a non‑competition agreement, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party had sought to enjoin former advisors and a financial services firm from operating a competing branch, but failed to establish an enforceable restrictive covenant or a serious issue to be tried.

The successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs.

The court held that one group of defendants was entitled to costs but denied costs to the corporate defendant due to its pre‑litigation conduct, which the court described as outrageous and contributing to the litigation.

Costs of $40,000 inclusive were awarded to the remaining defendants.

The plaintiff sought interlocutory injunctions enforcing non‑competition and non‑solicitation clauses in a 2004 agreement against several financial advisors and a related investment dealer after the advisors opened a competing branch nearby.

The court applied the RJR‑MacDonald test and considered whether the restrictive covenants were reasonable in geographic scope, temporal scope, and scope of prohibited activity.

Although the geographic scope was arguably reasonable and there was a serious issue to be tried regarding temporal scope, the court found the activity restrictions overly broad and therefore unreasonable.

As a result, the plaintiff failed to establish the required strength of case to justify interlocutory injunctive relief.

The balance of convenience also weighed against granting the injunction because a competing branch would operate regardless.

The motion for interlocutory injunctions was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their motion to stay the respondents' litigation based on an arbitration clause in their shareholder agreements.

The respondents argued the parties never reached an agreement on the contents of a schedule, meaning no arbitration agreement existed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and stayed the litigation, noting that the respondents had not sought a declaration that the agreements were void ab initio, the agreements contained severability clauses making the arbitration clauses separate contracts, and under the Arbitration Act, an arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction.

The litigation was stayed except with respect to three companies that were not parties to any shareholder agreement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a registrar’s dismissal order after failing to meet a court‑ordered deadline to set the action down for trial.

The underlying action involved a claim for adverse possession of a strip of land and a counterclaim for injunctive relief.

Applying the Reid factors, the court considered the explanation for the delay, the conduct of the parties, the role of former counsel’s errors, and potential prejudice to the defendants.

The court found the delay was not deliberate or contumelious and that the plaintiffs had made ongoing efforts to advance the action.

As the defendants demonstrated little actual prejudice and had themselves taken no steps to advance the litigation, the dismissal order was set aside and a new trial set‑down deadline imposed.

The appellants abandoned their appeal.

As the parties could not agree on costs, the Court of Appeal fixed the costs of the abandoned appeal payable to the respondents at $7,500, explicitly rejecting the respondents' request for substantial or full indemnity costs.

The appellant tenant appealed the dismissal of its action on a motion for summary judgment regarding a commercial lease termination.

The tenant argued the landlord was not entitled to terminate the lease, failed to provide proper notice of default, and that a post-termination agreement was unconscionable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the security deposit was deficient, the notice of default was sufficient under the Commercial Tenancies Act, and the post-termination agreement was not unconscionable as there was no inequality of bargaining power or unfairness.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that dismissed their motion to remove the responding parties' solicitor of record due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The Divisional Court found that the Board correctly applied the test for removal of a solicitor and made factual findings that no retainer existed and no confidential information was imparted.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed as the moving parties failed to show an error of law or good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding the voting rights of owners of parking and storage units.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower court that under section 49(3), owners of such units are not entitled to vote, subject to the statutory exception.

The appellants sought a new trial, alleging errors in the trial judge's reasons in a fraudulent misrepresentation action arising from a land purchase.

The court held there was ample evidence supporting each alternative basis on which the trial judge relied and that it was open to the trial judge to conclude the appellants failed to prove fraudulent representations.

The appellate court found no palpable and overriding error in the treatment of the evidence, including evidence concerning land value and the alleged representation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs on a solicitor and client basis.

In this commercial lease damages appeal, the appellants challenged findings that the respondent had reasonably mitigated its losses after replacement tenants vacated two units and that future rent losses were properly assessed.

The Court of Appeal held that the mitigation findings were factual determinations entitled to deference and that the appellants failed to adduce evidence showing the respondent's efforts were unreasonable.

The court also rejected the argument framed as remoteness respecting one unit, holding the real issue was mitigation.

The trial judge's use of a 50 percent reduction factor for uncertainty in future rent recovery was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.