Rebecca Althea Curcio

The Applicant, Simcoe Drug Mart Inc., sought an urgent interlocutory mandatory injunction to reinstate its lease for a pharmacy premises after the Respondent, Simcoe Medical Clinic Inc. (SMCI), terminated it due to non-payment of rent and re-leased it to a third party.

The court denied the injunction, finding no serious issue to be tried as the Applicant's key hearsay evidence regarding an alleged scheme was struck, and the Applicant failed to demonstrate "clean hands" by retaining funds belonging to the pharmacy.

The court also found that the balance of convenience favored the Respondent and the new tenant, given the Applicant's financial instability and the public interest in a stable pharmacy.

This motion concerned a dispute over litigation privilege regarding handwritten notes made by the plaintiffs' representative on an email from the defendant's counsel.

The plaintiffs claimed privilege, arguing the notes were made in contemplation of litigation.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet the onus to establish that the notes were created for the dominant purpose of reasonably contemplated litigation, as there was no direct evidence from the note-taker regarding his state of mind.

Consequently, the claim of privilege failed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to produce the notes.

The moving parties sought a stay pending appeal of a lower court's decision to permanently stay their underlying action in Ontario on the basis of forum non conveniens and forum selection clauses.

They also sought an order expediting the appeal.

The motion judge dismissed both requests, applying the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for stays pending appeal.

The court found that while the appeal raised a serious question, the moving parties failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The court also denied the request to expedite the appeal, finding no urgency.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action for damages arising from an arrest.

The defendants, as the successful parties, sought costs.

The plaintiffs argued against a cost award, citing divided success, public interest litigation, and access to justice concerns.

The court rejected these arguments, affirming the general principle that costs follow the event.

While finding the defendants entitled to costs, the court declined to impose joint and several liability on both plaintiffs, instead apportioning costs separately.

The total amount of costs awarded was significantly reduced from the amount sought by the defendants, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness, particularly given the case's initial designation as a simplified procedure action.