R. Trent Morris

The applicant minor hockey association sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent governing body from re-allocating minor hockey programming contrary to a 2018 agreement.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding whether reasonable notice of termination was required, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm.

The court found that any financial losses were quantifiable and compensable in damages, and the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, subsequent encumbrancers, sued the defendant first mortgagee for an improvident sale and an accounting of proceeds following a power of sale.

The action was administratively dismissed by the Registrar.

The plaintiffs moved to set aside the dismissal.

The court reviewed the history of the mortgage transactions, noted the defendant's failure to provide a meaningful accounting, and applied the contextual approach for setting aside administrative dismissals.

Finding a plausible explanation for the delay and a genuine issue regarding the property's value, the court set aside the dismissal and restored the action to active status.

Following two trials in a commercial dispute, the successful party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court held that allegations by the opposing party that a shareholders’ agreement was a fraudulent forgery were unsupported and justified elevated costs to the end of the first trial.

Costs thereafter were awarded on a partial indemnity basis because the second trial concerned only the quantum payable.

The court reviewed objections to time entries and disbursements and rejected most reductions, finding the work and rates generally reasonable.

A global adjustment was made to account for limited overlap between successive counsel.

Following earlier reasons ordering a buy‑out of a shareholder’s interests in two corporations for $640,000, the court addressed the appropriate start date for pre‑judgment interest.

The court reviewed the procedural history and determined that the buy‑out claim had not been pursued at the first trial and only crystallized when the court permitted the claim to proceed on April 11, 2013.

Accordingly, the cause of action for the buy‑out arose on that date.

Pre‑judgment interest was ordered to run from April 11, 2013 at the applicable quarterly rate.

Post‑judgment interest was set at 2% per annum.

The applicant sought costs on a complete indemnity basis for steps taken to compel the respondents' compliance with a consent order.

The respondents had paid the outstanding amounts prior to the final motion hearing, which was subsequently dismissed.

The court found the applicant was entitled to costs for steps taken prior to the respondents' compliance, but not for the unnecessary second appearance.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs, set-off against the respondents' costs for the second appearance, resulting in a net award of $14,500 to the applicant.