Roman Botiuk

The applicants, former franchisees, brought an application to enforce a settlement agreement requiring the respondent franchisor to pay $100,000.

The respondents withheld payment, arguing the applicants breached the agreement by continuing to use the franchise's store design and branding.

The court found that the applicants' use of generic open-concept shelving and flooring did not infringe on the franchisor's protected branding.

The court held that the respondents breached the settlement agreement and the duty of fair dealing under the Arthur Wishart Act by withholding the funds.

The application was granted and the respondents' counter-application was dismissed.

The moving party sought an emergency ex parte certificate of pending litigation over a property he characterized as the matrimonial home, alleging a constructive trust interest based on financial contributions and asserting urgency due to an imminent potential sale.

The court reviewed prior family law orders, including a standing order that prohibited the moving party from pursuing asset-freezing relief until he complied with financial disclosure obligations.

The moving party had failed to comply with those disclosure orders for nearly seven years.

The court rejected the explanation for the delay and found that the order preventing asset freezing remained operative.

It also found that the evidentiary record did not justify proceeding ex parte under Rule 14(12)(d) of the Family Law Rules.

The application for a certificate of pending litigation was dismissed with leave to bring the matter back on notice.