Xavier Navarrete

The applicants, former franchisees, brought an application to enforce a settlement agreement requiring the respondent franchisor to pay $100,000.

The respondents withheld payment, arguing the applicants breached the agreement by continuing to use the franchise's store design and branding.

The court found that the applicants' use of generic open-concept shelving and flooring did not infringe on the franchisor's protected branding.

The court held that the respondents breached the settlement agreement and the duty of fair dealing under the Arthur Wishart Act by withholding the funds.

The application was granted and the respondents' counter-application was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of actions and the granting of summary judgment to casino operators and a gaming regulator, the court determined costs.

The plaintiffs had claimed approximately $14 million alleging illegality in casino roulette operations and unjust enrichment.

The court held that partial indemnity was the appropriate scale, rejecting claims for substantial indemnity and also declining the plaintiffs’ submission that no costs should be awarded due to alleged illegality.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 and appellate guidance on reasonable and proportionate costs, the court fixed reduced lump-sum costs awards.

The casino defendants were awarded $110,000 and the regulator $60,000.

Multiple plaintiffs who were high-limit roulette players alleged that a casino operated illegal roulette games by allowing dealers to remove “floating balls” before they landed in a numbered slot, contrary to approved rules of play under Ontario gaming regulations.

They sought $7.5 million in damages and restitution of approximately $2.1 million lost gambling, asserting tort, contract, statutory misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment claims.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the actions and enforcing unpaid gambling loans.

The court held that even if the “floating ball” practice was not an approved rule of play and could have rendered certain spins unlawful, the unjust enrichment claim failed because the casino returned all wagers whenever a spin was stopped, meaning there was no enrichment and no corresponding deprivation.

With no viable damages evidence and no triable issues, summary judgment was granted and the defendants also succeeded on their collection counterclaims.