4 total
Action for breach of confidence dismissed on summary judgment due to lack of evidence.
The plaintiff sued the defendants, alleging they disclosed confidential information, including unit credit prices and site fill capacity, to competitors.
The defendants moved for summary judgment.
The court found no evidence to support the plaintiff's allegations of breach of confidence and noted the plaintiff failed to call key witnesses or provide evidence beyond mere supposition.
The action was dismissed.
Adjournment of summary judgment motion denied where plaintiff sought to pursue disproportionate non-party refusals motion.
The plaintiff sought an adjournment of the defendants' scheduled summary judgment motion to allow it to move on refusals from a Rule 39.03 examination of a non-party competitor.
The court denied the adjournment, finding that the plaintiff had failed to disclose its intention to conduct the examination when scheduling the motion, and that the examination itself was a disproportionate fishing expedition unsupported by evidence.
Applying the culture shift mandated by Hryniak, the court held that the defendants were entitled to have their motion heard without further delay.
Equitable set-off could not reopen adjudicated rescission claims.
The appellants appealed orders arising from a franchise rescission dispute under the Arthur Wishart Act, 2000.
The respondents had obtained partial summary judgment on rescission-related claims, and a Master fixed compensation under s. 6(6).
The appellants also sought to amend their pleading to assert equitable set-off, but the appeal court upheld the interpretation that any such amendment was confined to the still-outstanding s. 7 claims and could not reopen the already-adjudicated s. 6 claims.
The court further held that the Master's factual findings attracted deference and disclosed no misapprehension, error in principle, or palpable and overriding error.
The appeals were dismissed with fixed costs to the respondents.
Most discovery refusals upheld in franchise class action as questions offended proportionality and top-down systemic approach.
In a certified class action alleging price maintenance and conspiracy by a franchisor and its designated food supplier, the parties brought reciprocal motions regarding refusals on examinations for discovery.
The court applied the principles of relevance, materiality, and proportionality, emphasizing that the action was certified based on a 'top-down' systemic approach rather than a 'bottom-up' product-by-product analysis.
The court largely upheld the refusals, finding many questions to be irrelevant, disproportionate, or inconsistent with the certified common issues, while ordering a small number of questions to be answered.
