Ted A. Kalnins

Dunn Aggregates Limited appealed a Superior Court order barring its claim for damages under an undertaking given by Coco Paving Inc. for an interlocutory injunction.

The injunction had restrained Dunn Aggregates from breaching non-competition and restrictive covenant agreements.

The trial judge found that Coco Paving was the successful party at trial, meaning the injunction was not 'wrongfully granted,' and thus Dunn Aggregates was not entitled to damages under the undertaking.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's decision, finding no special circumstances to warrant damages based on the undertaking.

The plaintiff, ZD Metal Products Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, Metamag Inc., concerning alleged breaches of contract for the manufacture of two industrial ovens.

The plaintiff sought approximately $400,000 USD for a defective aluminum furnace and an undelivered magnesium furnace.

The defendant argued that the aluminum furnace's failure was due to the plaintiff's improper maintenance and operation, and that the magnesium furnace contract was not fully complied with by the plaintiff, including payment and inspection.

The court found a multitude of genuine issues of fact requiring a trial, including whether the aluminum furnace was defective upon delivery, if the defendant failed to repair it, if the plaintiff caused the damage, and issues related to the magnesium furnace contract's terms and plaintiff's compliance.

Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiffs, Harold Gerstel and 2102503 Ontario Inc., sought to remove arbitrators, set aside an arbitration agreement, and lift a stay of court proceedings in a business dispute that had been referred to a rabbinical court (Beis Din) for binding arbitration.

The plaintiffs alleged bias on the part of the arbitrators and unfair treatment, particularly regarding the production of financial records and communications between the arbitrators and the defendants.

The court dismissed the motions, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias or breach of equality and fairness, emphasizing judicial restraint in interfering with community-based arbitration processes, while affirming the court's residual jurisdiction to ensure fundamental principles are upheld.