R. Walker

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while his driver's licence was suspended, operating a motor vehicle without proper number plates, and failing to surrender proof of insurance.

The central issue was the identity of the person who operated the vehicle.

The investigating officer identified the defendant based on a name provided at the scene and CPIC information.

The defence called a corroborating witness who testified that he, not the defendant, was the person encountered by police and that he had falsely identified himself using the defendant's name to avoid charges due to his own suspended licence.

The defendant testified he was not in Norfolk County at the time of the alleged offences.

The court found that the defence evidence, while suspect, raised a reasonable doubt as to the Crown's case, particularly regarding identity.

The charges were dismissed.

A bankruptcy trustee brought a motion under s. 163(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act seeking to compel former directors and an officer of the bankrupt entities to attend examinations under oath and produce documents concerning the bankrupts’ affairs.

The respondents argued that because the trustee had already commenced a civil action relating to a dividend transaction, the trustee could not rely on the statutory examination power absent exceptional circumstances and should instead obtain information through discovery in the action.

The court held that the trustee’s statutory examination powers are broad and are not limited to exceptional circumstances where litigation has commenced.

The court found the examinations were necessary for the proper administration of the bankrupt estate and not merely a step in the civil action.

The respondents were ordered to attend examinations and produce documents, with portions relevant to the civil action to count as discoveries to avoid duplication.

The parties sought clarification on the settlement of an order following a judgment declaring a bulk sale void for non-compliance with the Bulk Sales Act.

The applicant trustee argued that the respondent purchaser's liability to account for the 'value of the stock in bulk' under s. 16(2) of the Act included the HST paid on the transaction.

The court applied the modern principle of statutory interpretation and held that the plain and ordinary meaning of 'value of the stock in bulk' does not include value-added taxes like HST.

The respondent's maximum liability was therefore capped at the purchase price excluding HST, less amounts paid to secured creditors.

Following dismissal of a motion for interim injunctive relief, the court addressed costs.

The respondents sought partial indemnity costs and the applicant did not challenge the amounts claimed or the reasonableness of the time spent and hourly rates.

The applicant argued that costs should be in the cause, determined by the judge hearing the ultimate application, or that no costs should be ordered.

Applying Rule 57.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that costs of the motion should be fixed absent a more just order and found no basis to defer or decline a costs award.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to each respondent.

The applicant sought an interim injunction and relief from forfeiture arising from the cancellation of billboard licence agreements on railway lands.

The respondents terminated the licences and demanded removal of approximately 240 billboard structures and payment of alleged rental arrears.

The court applied the three‑part test for interlocutory injunctions and found that although a serious issue existed regarding the parties’ conduct and contractual interpretation, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm because any loss could be compensated by damages.

The balance of convenience did not favour either party.

Interim equitable relief was therefore inappropriate in what was fundamentally a monetary dispute.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion seeking injunctive relief and an Anton Piller order against former employees and a competing corporation.

Evidence indicated that one former employee downloaded thousands of confidential corporate files prior to leaving employment and that the defendants were using the information to compete for the plaintiff’s principal customer.

Applying the three‑part test for interlocutory injunctions under the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure as articulated in RJR‑MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s business, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The court held that the defendants’ conduct arguably breached contractual confidentiality obligations, restrictive covenants, and duties of confidence.

Injunctive relief restraining the defendants’ conduct was granted.