Tudor Carsten

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 defendants brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to strike the plaintiff's defamation claim as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The plaintiff, Sikhs for Justice, sued the defendants over an article alleging the plaintiff's referendum campaign for an independent Sikh state was driven and controlled by Pakistan.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim had substantial merit and that there were grounds to believe the defendants' defences of responsible communication and fair comment might not succeed.

The court concluded that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs successfully defeated the defendant's anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and sought partial indemnity costs of $43,641.16.

The court considered the presumption in s. 137.1(8) that a successful responding party is not entitled to costs unless appropriate in the circumstances.

The court found that the plaintiffs' defamation claim was weak and appeared to be used strategically to extract a gag order from the defendant.

Given the strategic behaviour of both parties, the court declined to award costs to the plaintiffs.

The moving party and respondent entered into a joint venture to develop condominiums.

After the moving party's family assets were frozen, he transferred his shares in the project companies to the respondent to allow the respondent to secure financing, executing a document styled as a 'trust agreement'.

The moving party later brought a motion seeking the return of the shares, arguing the agreement created a bare trust that could be collapsed under the rule in Saunders v. Vautier.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the document was a contractual agreement rather than a trust, and that the rule in Saunders v. Vautier would not apply regardless because the moving party did not have absolute beneficial ownership of the shares.

In a group of related civil proceedings involving multiple plaintiffs and the same defendants, the court considered a request concerning the deadline for filing third party claims.

Following a prior order, the parties jointly sought an extension of time to file all third party claims.

The court granted the request on consent and extended the deadline to September 25, 2015.

The endorsement reflects a procedural timetable adjustment rather than a substantive determination of the underlying claims.

In a group of related civil proceedings involving multiple plaintiffs and the same defendants, the court considered a request concerning the deadline for filing third party claims.

Following a prior order, the parties jointly sought an extension of time to file all third party claims.

The court granted the request on consent and extended the deadline to September 25, 2015.

The endorsement reflects a procedural timetable adjustment rather than a substantive determination of the underlying claims.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a Mareva injunction against the defendants, seeking to freeze their assets based on an alleged debt owed under a Repayment Agreement.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants were planning to move to the United States and dissipate their Ontario assets to avoid judgment.

The court found that while the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case for the debt, there was insufficient evidence to prove a real risk that the defendants were removing assets from the jurisdiction to avoid judgment.

The motion for a Mareva injunction was dismissed.