Sarah O’Grady

The plaintiff brought a motion to continue an interim interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from shutting down its website pending trial over a software license fee dispute.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm because damages would be an adequate remedy.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the defendants, as an injunction would be akin to ordering specific performance of a contract for personal services.

The motion was dismissed, but the court extended the interim injunction for six months on terms to allow the plaintiff time to find replacement software.

The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to prevent the defendants from shutting down its website pending an interlocutory injunction hearing.

The parties had a software licensing agreement and disputed the monthly fees owed.

The court applied the RJR-McDonald test, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the agreement's terms, irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business if the website was shut down, and the balance of convenience favouring the plaintiff.

The court granted the interim injunction but ordered the plaintiff to continue paying the disputed higher monthly fee to maintain the status quo until the interlocutory hearing.

Following the dismissal of a copyright infringement action on summary judgment, the successful corporate defendants sought costs of the motions and the broader action.

The self‑represented plaintiff, who was also a qualified lawyer, argued that no costs should be awarded due to his modest means and good faith prosecution of the claim.

The court applied the normative Ontario approach that costs follow the event and are generally awarded on a partial indemnity basis under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that financial hardship was not established and that the plaintiff, as an experienced lawyer, understood the risks of adverse costs.

Applying reasonableness and proportionality principles, the court fixed costs at $50,000 for one defendant and $70,000 for the other.

The plaintiff alleged copyright infringement relating to the distribution and online listing of his book.

The defendants moved for summary judgment under Rule 20, arguing there was no evidence they had printed, distributed, or sold infringing copies and that any online listing occurred outside Canada.

The court held that the evidentiary record established the defendants never possessed or sold copies of the book and that the online listing did not create a sufficient connection to Canada to engage the Copyright Act.

The court also found no evidence supporting claims of secondary infringement or infringement of moral rights.

As there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs’ statement of claim or alternatively for further particulars.

The claim alleged copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, interference with contractual relations, unjust enrichment, and misappropriation of goodwill relating to software and a business method used in contact centre management.

The court held that the pleading of copyright infringement was deficient because it failed to plead the chain of title and did not clearly identify the copyrighted works or the assignment or grant of rights required under the Copyright Act.

That portion of the claim was struck with leave to amend.

The remaining causes of action were sufficiently pleaded and the request for further particulars was dismissed.