Molson Canada 2005 v. Miller Brewing Company

[Indexed as: Molson Canada 2005 v. Miller Brewing Co.]

Ontario Reports

Ontario Superior Court of Justice,

Wilton-Siegel J.

June 20, 2013

116 O.R. (3d) 108 | 2013 ONSC 2758

Case Summary

Injunctions — Interlocutory injunction — Defendant terminating long-standing licence agreement with plaintiff under which plaintiff distributed and sold defendant's products in Canada — Plaintiff suing defendant for declaration that licence agreement remained in full force and effect and for other relief — Plaintiff moving for interlocutory injunction setting aside and enjoining defendant's notice of termination pending trial — Motion granted — Serious issues to be tried existing with respect to effect of waiver clause in amended licence agreement and plaintiff's allegation of defendant's failure to exercise right of termination in good faith — Plaintiff suffering irreparable harm if injunction were not granted — Balance of convenience favouring preservation of status quo pending trial.

The plaintiff had been the exclusive Canadian licensed distributor of the defendant's key trademarks and brands since 1982. When the defendant purported to terminate the licence agreement, the plaintiff brought an action seeking a declaration that the licence agreement remained in full force and effect and for other relief. The plaintiff moved for an interlocutory injunction setting aside and enjoining the defendant's notice of termination pending trial.

Held, the motion should be granted. [page109]

Serious issues to be tried existed with respect to the effect of a waiver clause in the amended licence agreement and the plaintiff's allegation that the defendant had failed to exercise the right of termination in good faith. The plaintiff had established that it would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted. The balance of convenience favoured the preservation of the status quo pending trial.

RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, [1994] S.C.J. No. 17, 111 D.L.R. (4th) 385, 164 N.R. 1, J.E. 94-423, 60 Q.A.C. 241, 54 C.P.R. (3d) 114, 46 A.C.W.S. (3d) 40, apld

Other cases referred to

978011 Ontario Ltd. v. Cornell Engineering Co. (2001), 2001 8522 (ON CA), 53 O.R. (3d) 783, [2001] O.J. No. 1446, 198 D.L.R. (4th) 615, 144 O.A.C. 262, 12 B.L.R. (3d) 240, 8 C.C.E.L. (3d) 169, 104 A.C.W.S. (3d) 676 (C.A.) [Leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused [2001] S.C.C.A. No. 315]; American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., 1975 2598 (FC), [1975] A.C. 396, [1975] 1 All E.R. 504, [1975] 2 W.L.R. 316, [1975] R.P.C. 513, [1975] F.S.R. 101 (H.L.); British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Wale, 1986 171 (BC CA), [1986] B.C.J. No. 1395, 120 N.R. 212, [1987] 2 W.W.R. 331, 9 B.C.L.R. (2d) 333, [1987] 2 C.N.L.R. 36, 2 A.C.W.S. (3d) 301 (C.A.); Brown v. Gould, [1972] Ch. 53, [1971] 2 All E.R. 1505, [1971] 3 W.L.R. 334, 22 P & C.R. 871, 220 E.G. 493, [1971] E.G.D. 889 (Ch. Div.); Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. 1098748 Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. Canyyz Properties Ltd. Partnership), [1999] O.J. No. 963, 97 O.T.C. 282, 22 R.P.R. (3d) 82, 87 A.C.W.S. (3d) 371 (Gen. Div.); Cedar Group Inc. v. Stelco Inc., [1996] O.J. No. 3974, 66 A.C.W.S. (3d) 867 (C.A.), affg [1995] O.J. No. 3998, 59 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1096 (Gen. Div.); Chuang v. Toyota Canada Inc., [2007] O.J. No. 2069, 157 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1029 (S.C.J.); Courtney & Fairburn Ltd. v. Tolaini Brothers (Hotels) Ltd., [1975] 1 All E.R. 716, [1975] 1 W.L.R. 297, 2 Build. L.R. 97, 234 E.G. 987, [1987] E.G.D. 181 (C.A.); CPC International Inc. v. Seaforth Creamery Inc., 1996 21931 (ON SC), [1996] O.J. No. 5591, 70 C.P.R. (3d) 307 (Div. Ct.); EdperBrascan Corp. v. 177373 Canada Ltd., 2002 17624 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 759, 22 B.L.R. (3d) 42, 112 A.C.W.S. (3d) 263 (C.A.), affg (2000), 2000 22694 (ON SC), 50 O.R. (3d) 425, [2000] O.J. No. 4012, [2000] O.T.C. 722, 9 B.L.R. (3d) 234, 37 R.P.R. (3d) 188, 100 A.C.W.S. (3d) 571 (S.C.J.); Empress Towers Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 1990 2207 (BC CA), [1990] B.C.J. No. 2054, 73 D.L.R. (4th) 400, [1991] 1 W.W.R. 537, 50 B.C.L.R. (2d) 126, 48 B.L.R. 212, 14 R.P.R. (2d) 115, 23 A.C.W.S. (3d) 77 (C.A.); Foley v. Classique Coaches Ltd., [1934] 2 K.B. 1, [1934] All E.R. Rep. 88, 103 L.J.K.B. 550, 151 L.T. 242 (C.A.); L.C.D.H. Audio Visual Ltd. v. I.S.T.S. Verbatim Ltd., [1988] O.J. No. 633, 40 B.L.R. 128, 10 A.C.W.S. (3d) 113 (H.C.J.); Labatt Brewing Co. v. NHL Enterprises Canada L.P., [2011] O.J. No. 4931, 2011 ONSC 5652, 96 B.L.R. (4th) 281, 209 A.C.W.S. (3d) 308 (S.C.J.); Martel Building Ltd. v. Canada, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 860, [2000] S.C.J. No. 60, 2000 SCC 60, 193 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 262 N.R. 285, J.E. 2000-2272, 3 C.C.L.T. (3d) 1, 5 C.L.R. (3d) 161, 36 R.P.R. (3d) 175, REJB 2000-21224, 101 A.C.W.S. (3d) 410; Paul Sadlon Motors Inc. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., [2011] O.J. No. 3374, 2011 ONSC 4432 (S.C.J.); Setanta Sports NA Ltd. v. Score Television Network Ltd., [2009] O.J. No. 3281, 179 A.C.W.S. (3d) 685 (S.C.J.); Shelanu Inc. v. Print Three Franchising Corp. (2003), 2003 52151 (ON CA), 64 O.R. (3d) 533, [2003] O.J. No. 1919, 226 D.L.R. (4th) 577, 172 O.A.C. 78, 38 B.L.R. (3d) 42, 123 A.C.W.S. (3d) 267 (C.A.); Siga Technologies Inc. v. Parmathene, Inc., 2013 WL 2303303, 67 A.3d 330 (Del. Sup. Ct.); The TDL Group Corp. v. DXStorm.com Inc., 2012 ONSC 5717 (S.C.J.); Ventas, Inc. v. Sunrise Senior Living Real Estate Investment Trust (2007), 85 O.R. (3d) 254, [2007] O.J. No. 1083, 2007 ONCA 205, 222 O.A.C. 102, 29 B.L.R. (4th) 312, 56 R.P.R. (4th) 163, 156 A.C.W.S. (3d) 95; Walford v. Miles, [1992] 2 A.C. 128, [1992] 1 All E.R. 453, [1992] 2 W.L.R. 174, 64 P. & C.R. 166, [1992] 11 E.G. 115, [1992] 1 E.G.L.R. 207 (H.L.); Western Paint & Wallcovering Co. v. Benjamin Moore & Co., [2009] M.J. No. 6, 2009 MBQB 1, 235 Man. R. (2d) 203, 73 C.P.C. (6th) 334 [page110]

MOTION for an interlocutory injunction.

R. Paul Steep, Thomas Sutton and Adam Ship, for applicant/plaintiff.

Dan MacDonald, W. Brad Hanna and Calie Adamson, for respondent/defendant.

[1] Endorsement of WILTON-SIEGEL J.: — On this motion, Molson Canada 2005 seeks an interlocutory injunction, pending the trial of this action currently scheduled for December 9, 2013, setting aside and enjoining Miller Brewing Company's notice of termination of a licence agreement between the parties respecting the distribution and sale of Miller-brand beers in Canada by Molson.

(continues exactly as provided above through paragraph [160]…)

Motion granted.

End of Document