Timothy John 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.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike portions of the defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, arguing they pleaded facts protected by settlement privilege.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to amend the pleading.

The court granted leave for the interlocutory motion under the Construction Act.

The court declined to make a pre-emptive ruling on the admissibility of the communications at the pleadings stage, noting the factual dispute over whether they were 'without prejudice' settlement discussions or efforts to mitigate ongoing contractual issues.

The court struck the impugned paragraph but allowed the defendant's proposed amendment, which focused on the plaintiff's knowledge rather than the settlement proposal itself.

The applicant sought to terminate the respondents' occupancy of her home, arguing it was a familial arrangement and not a tenancy.

The respondents contended they had a valid tenancy under the Commercial Tenancies Act based on an unsigned agreement and part performance.

The court found the arrangement was familial, not a tenancy, and ordered the respondents to vacate the property, emphasizing that family arrangements can negate the intention to create a legal tenancy.

The plaintiff, a restaurant tenant, sued the landlord and its director for wrongful lease termination and damages.

The landlord counterclaimed for accelerated rent.

The court found the landlord unlawfully terminated the lease, awarding the tenant damages for lost business, deposit reimbursement, and duct cleaning costs.

The counterclaim was dismissed, and punitive damages and personal liability for the director were denied.

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 appellant general contractor appealed from summary judgments granted to two sub-subcontractors in a consolidated construction lien action.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by granting judgment without evidence of the value of the work done by the subcontractor, misinterpreting the holdback provisions of the Construction Lien Act, and improperly placing the evidentiary burden on the appellant to establish the quantum of its liability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the liens were not restricted to the basic holdback and that the appellant failed to provide evidence of the amount it owed to the subcontractor, which was a fact within its knowledge.

At a pre-trial hearing, the court struck the pleadings of Superior Fine Papers Inc., Reliance Holdings Limited, and Reliance Developments Corporation ("Superior et. al.") in two related actions due to their repeated failure to comply with court-ordered litigation timetables, deliver documents, make representatives available for examinations for discovery, and pay previously ordered costs.

The court also awarded further costs against Superior et. al. and set conditions for any motion to set aside the striking of pleadings, including the prior payment of all outstanding costs.

The court determined costs for two motions: a motion to transfer an action from Thunder Bay to Milton, and a cross-motion to stay an action in Milton based on a jurisdiction clause.

Both original motions were dismissed.

For the motion to stay, no costs were awarded, as the delays were attributed to the Property Owners' (Superior Fine Papers Inc., Reliance Holdings Limited, and Reliance Developments Corporation) conduct.

For the motion to transfer, the Property Owners were ordered to pay partial indemnity costs of $7,000 to Terrapure Environmental (Revolution Environmental Solutions LP c.o.b. as Terrapure Environmental and Revolution Environmental Solutions Acquisition GP Inc.), due to their unsuccessful motion and conduct that unnecessarily lengthened proceedings.

The Property Owners brought a motion to transfer a construction lien action from Thunder Bay to Milton and to have it heard together with a related breach of contract action.

The defendant, Newalta, brought a motion to stay the breach of contract action based on a forum selection clause specifying Alberta jurisdiction.

The court dismissed Newalta's motion for a stay, finding that although the forum selection clause was valid, the interests of justice and avoidance of multiple proceedings constituted strong cause not to enforce it.

The court also dismissed the Property Owners' motion to transfer the construction lien action, finding that Thunder Bay was the more appropriate venue given the location of the property, the events, and the witnesses.

The issue of whether the actions should be heard together was deferred to the Regional Senior Justice of the Northwest Region.

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 appellant, who had an extensive litigation history against the respondent municipality, appealed a costs order.

The application judge had declined to award costs on the appellant's application to quash two municipal resolutions banning him from municipal facilities, finding that success would have been divided had the matter been heard on the merits before the resolutions were repealed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge made no error in principle and that it was reasonably open to him to find that success would have been divided.

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

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

The court found the respondents' request reasonable and in line with the Boucher test, noting the appellants' own costs outline was for $9,549.24.

The court awarded the respondents costs of $2,623.88 for each appeal, totaling $10,495.51.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rules 25.06, 25.10, and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to strike portions of a defendant’s Statement of Defence in a civil fraud action alleging misappropriation of corporate funds.

The court considered whether several pleaded allegations were irrelevant, speculative, inflammatory, or unsupported by material facts.

Some impugned paragraphs were allowed to remain because they were relevant to the defendant’s theory that he acted under instructions from a corporate officer.

However, other allegations containing speculation, unsupported assertions, or inflammatory descriptive terms were struck, though the defendant was granted leave to amend to properly plead material facts and comply with pleading rules, including requirements for pleading fraud with particulars.

Four appellants appealed the dismissal of their Small Claims Court motions for judgment based on alleged settlements.

The deputy judge had previously set aside default judgments against the respondents and found that no settlements had been concluded.

When the appellants later brought motions to enforce the alleged settlements, the deputy judge dismissed them on the basis of res judicata.

The Divisional Court upheld the deputy judge's findings, concluding there was no conflict of interest and that the issue of settlement was res judicata as it had been squarely raised and decided in the prior motion.

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.

The moving defendants sought summary dismissal of a cross‑claim arising from a three‑vehicle motor vehicle collision.

The responding defendants alleged the moving defendants’ excessive speed caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries.

The court held that causation regarding speed and injury severity required expert evidence and that the responding defendants had produced none.

Given the expert reconstruction evidence filed by the moving defendants indicating the collision was unavoidable and injuries would have been similar at the posted speed limit, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary dismissal of the cross‑claim.