Timothy J. McGurrin

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce restrictive covenants against a former sales consultant who allegedly used confidential information to start a competing business.

An interim injunction was already in place on consent.

The court dismissed the application for an expanded interlocutory injunction, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case for relief beyond the existing interim terms, which already enforced the substance of the restrictive covenants.

Following an appeal of an arbitration award where success was divided, the appellants sought costs of $24,322.76.

The respondents argued that each party should bear their own costs or, alternatively, costs should be fixed at $3,500.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Finding that the appellants were successful in having the arbitrator's reasons deemed inadequate on one issue, while the respondents were successful in having the matter remitted to the original arbitrator, the court concluded that success was divided and made no order as to costs.

The appellants sought leave to appeal an arbitration award arising from the termination of a medical practice business relationship.

The arbitrator had awarded the respondents $946,071, which included a refund of overhead expenses and 'Special Expenses' deducted by the appellants.

The court found that the parties had not contracted out of the right to appeal under s. 45 of the Arbitration Act.

Leave to appeal was granted because the adequacy of the arbitrator's reasons constituted a question of law.

The court held that the arbitrator's reasons were inadequate regarding the Special Expenses, as they failed to explain why the appellants were ordered to repay those amounts.

The court varied the award to order repayment of a 5% overhead increase and remitted the Special Expenses issue back to the original arbitrator for determination.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for summary judgment on its construction lien claim for $94,729.17 against the general contractor, who had posted a lien bond to vacate the lien.

The general contractor filed no responding materials, arguing instead that leave was required and that the evidentiary record was deficient under s. 17(1) of the Construction Lien Act.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that leave was granted, Rule 48.04 did not bar the motion, and the uncontradicted evidence established the timeliness and quantum of the claim.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The defendants moved for a stay of a civil action on the basis that the dispute fell within an arbitration clause contained in a unanimous shareholders agreement.

The plaintiffs alleged breaches of confidentiality, non‑competition, fiduciary duties, and economic relations arising after one founder left the company and formed a competing business.

The court applied s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 and the competence‑competence principle, concluding that it was at least arguable the dispute fell within the arbitration agreement.

The presence of a corporate defendant that was not a signatory and the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief did not prevent referral to arbitration.

The court stayed the action and directed that the arbitrator determine jurisdiction and the merits of the dispute.

The successful respondents sought partial indemnity costs for four appeals totaling $10,495.51.

The appellants requested no costs or a reduced amount of $3,000.

Noting that the appellants did not complain about the rate or time spent, and that their own costs outline was similar, the court found the respondents' request met the Boucher test and awarded the full amount claimed.

The appellants appealed four Small Claims Court decisions dismissing their motions for judgment based on alleged settlements.

The deputy judge had previously set aside default judgments against the respondents, finding no settlements were concluded.

On the subsequent motions to enforce the settlements, the deputy judge dismissed them on the basis of res judicata.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the deputy judge's refusal to recuse himself and agreeing that the issue of settlement was res judicata as it had been squarely raised and decided in the prior motions.