Stephen Wolpert

The plaintiff, Aware Ads Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction against its former employee, Greg Walker, to prevent him from working for a competitor, despite his non-competition and non-solicitation clauses having expired.

The plaintiff alleged breach of confidence, breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy.

The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case on any of its causes of action, failed to prove irreparable harm, and found the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.

The court also ruled that a transcript and audio recording of a conversation were inadmissible due to lack of proper authentication.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

The plaintiff, an internet marketing company, brought an urgent motion for an interim injunction, a Mareva injunction, and a Certificate of Pending Litigation against two former employees and a related corporation.

The plaintiff alleged the former employees breached non-competition and non-solicitation clauses by operating a competing business and misappropriating confidential information.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm, as the evidence connecting the defendants to the competing business was largely circumstantial and speculative.

The requests for asset-freezing relief and a Certificate of Pending Litigation were also dismissed due to insufficient evidence of asset dissipation or illicit funding.

The plaintiff, an aluminum scrap brokerage, sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain a former employee from competing against it.

The plaintiff alleged the employee breached fiduciary duties and a restrictive covenant in his employment agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case.

The employee was not a fiduciary because the plaintiff was not peculiarly vulnerable to him, as deals in the industry are driven by price rather than relationships.

Furthermore, the restrictive covenant was an overly broad and unenforceable non-competition clause.

The plaintiff also failed to prove irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the employee.

The defendant municipality brought a motion under Rule 30.10 for the production of non-party records from the plaintiff's former employer.

The defendant alleged after-acquired cause for the plaintiff's termination, claiming he used confidential information during his recruitment.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing the defendant failed to meet the test for production.

The court granted the motion, finding the records were relevant to the pleadings and it would be unfair to require the defendant to proceed to discovery or trial without them.

The plaintiff manufacturer brought a summary judgment motion for $222,339.57 in unpaid invoices against the defendant, a former authorized dealer.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to compel the plaintiff to accept the return of inventory purchased in the six months prior to the termination of their relationship.

The court found that the plaintiff had effectively terminated the distributorship arrangement without notice.

To give business efficacy to the parties' arrangement, the court implied a term allowing the defendant to return untouched inventory purchased after May 1, 2018, for full credit against the outstanding invoices.