Ruzbeh Hosseini

The plaintiff, Product Pro Industrial Supplies Inc., moved for an interlocutory injunction against the defendants, Sheam Yee Wang and KTS Consulting, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and unfair competition.

The court found a strong prima facie case that Wang owed fiduciary duties to Product Pro, noting his role as "Director of Operations" and contractual obligations.

Irreparable harm in the form of loss of goodwill and market share was established.

The court also found the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, rejecting the "unclean hands" defense.

An interlocutory injunction was granted for 12 months, restraining the Wang Defendants from soliciting Product Pro's customers or potential customers contacted before March 21, 2019.

The appellant, a dermatological clinic, appealed the dismissal of its defamation action against a respondent who posted negative online reviews claiming the laser resurfacing treatments caused volume loss to her face.

The motion judge dismissed the action under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that while the appellant met the threshold under section 137.1(4)(a)(ii) by showing a reasonable trier could view the respondent's claims as factual statements rather than protected opinion, the appellant failed to satisfy the balancing test under section 137.1(4)(b) by not establishing that the harm suffered was sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the respondent's expression.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiff's action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the defendant sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued for no costs or a reduced amount.

The court found no reason to depart from the presumptive entitlement to full indemnity costs under s. 137.1(7).

Costs were fixed at $20,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

This motion sought to correct the plaintiff's name to include a litigation guardian, Valerie Lummack by her litigation guardian Keith Lummack, due to Valerie's alleged mental incapacity.

The court reviewed conflicting expert evidence regarding Valerie's capacity to instruct counsel, noting discrepancies and the lack of accommodation for her communication deficits in the assessments.

The court emphasized the expert's duty to assist the court and directed the plaintiff's expert to conduct a further clinical interview with Valerie, specifically utilizing accommodations for her communication deficits, or provide reasons why such accommodations are unnecessary, within 30 days.

The defendants were granted leave to file a responding report.

Following a prior motion decision, the parties were unable to agree on costs and sought a determination from the court.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the motion was vexatious and unnecessary, while the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs and argued the motion was required to secure payment of outstanding costs awards and attendance for an examination in aid of execution.

The court held that success on a motion must be assessed by comparing the circumstances before and after the motion and whether the motion induced compliance.

The court found the motion was necessary to obtain payment of outstanding costs awards and to secure attendance for examination.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the plaintiff, reduced to reflect lack of success on one issue.

The applicant brought a motion under the Evidence Act and Canada Evidence Act seeking orders related to a letter rogatory issued in litigation pending before a Utah court.

The motion requested substitution of a new applicant, EdiZONE LLC, and the addition of two individuals as respondents to the Ontario application.

The court held that the substitution of the applicant was unopposed and should be granted.

It further concluded that the presence of the proposed respondents was necessary to enable the application judge to adjudicate effectively and completely on the issues related to the letter rogatory request.

The motion to add the proposed respondents was therefore granted, while costs were reserved to the application judge.