Ryan Atkinson

Following the dismissal of a motion brought by the purchaser against the Receiver for alleged breaches of an Asset Purchase Agreement, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the Receiver.

The Receiver claimed $134,188.17, while the purchaser argued for $60,000.

The court deducted the Receiver's own non-legal professional staff time and reduced the overall amount based on proportionality and reasonableness, fixing the costs payable by the purchaser at $105,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The moving party purchaser sought damages or a $350,000 abatement of the purchase price, alleging the court-appointed Receiver breached an Asset Purchase Agreement and a Share Purchase Agreement by failing to act in good faith and use best efforts to preserve a cannabis license.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Receiver had no authority over the excluded cannabis assets under its appointment order, the purchaser failed to discover the license's expiry date during its own due diligence, and the Receiver fully complied with its contractual obligations to negotiate and assist with a change of control.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment for possession of the mortgaged property and payment of the mortgage debt.

The defendant mortgagor opposed, arguing she was duped into the mortgage by third parties who were acting as agents for the plaintiff, and sought leave to issue a third-party claim.

The court found no evidence of an agency relationship between the plaintiff and the alleged conspirators, and granted summary judgment as there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court denied leave to issue the third-party claim, finding it would cause undue delay and prejudice to the plaintiff.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to enforce a settlement agreement and the dismissal of the plaintiff's cross-motion, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The plaintiff argued the defendants' costs claims were excessive.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of $45,000 to Leggett and $3,500 to Garlock.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from allegedly passing off their gym business as affiliated with the plaintiffs' boxing and fitness business.

They also sought declarations regarding an alleged website sabotage, orders compelling third‑party production relating to a domain name, and further document production.

Applying the three‑part test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR‑MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), the court found there was a serious issue to be tried but concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The court held that the plaintiffs’ evidentiary record relied heavily on hearsay from a marketing consultant rather than affidavits from individuals with direct knowledge.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, including the requests for declaratory and production relief.