Zohar Levy

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 59.06 to vary an interlocutory injunction that prohibited him from competing with or soliciting customers of the responding party.

The court found that the responding party had failed to pursue their case with reasonable dispatch, as pleadings were not yet closed 15 months after the injunction was granted.

Furthermore, the contractual non-competition and non-solicitation periods in the Professional Services Agreement had already expired.

The court granted the motion in part, terminating the non-competition and non-solicitation obligations against the moving party personally.

The respondent, a UK-based company, brought a motion to stay the application against it for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter, or to set aside service ex juris.

The applicant cross-moved to amend its Notice of Application to plead additional grounds for service outside Ontario and to add a claim for inducing breach of contract.

The court granted the applicant leave to amend, finding no non-compensable prejudice.

However, while the court found service ex juris was validly effected under the amended rules, it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction simpliciter over the foreign respondent because none of the presumptive connecting factors from Van Breda were established.

The application against the foreign respondent was stayed.

Following a previous decision, the parties reached an agreement on the costs of the motion.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendant $10,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, in accordance with the parties' agreement.

The plaintiff employers brought an urgent motion for an interim interlocutory injunction to restrain a former employee from disclosing confidential information, soliciting clients, and competing with their live events business.

The court applied the RJR-Macdonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any potential damages could be quantified and compensated financially.

The balance of convenience favoured the defendant, as an injunction would prevent him from earning a livelihood in his chosen field.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to a full hearing on a complete record.

The applicant sought leave to appeal or set aside two arbitral awards issued in favour of the respondent regarding a commercial dispute over the manufacture of blow moulding machines.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had waived its right to object to the arbitrator's jurisdiction by failing to raise the issue until closing arguments.

Furthermore, the court held that the 'final and binding' language in the parties' arbitration agreement precluded any right of appeal under s. 45 of the Arbitration Act.

The court also rejected arguments that the arbitrator failed to consider evidence, acted unfairly, or demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias, concluding that the arbitrator's findings were reasonable and well-founded.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for approval of a $5,000,000 settlement in a class proceeding against a Children's Aid Society regarding a privacy breach where confidential client information was leaked online.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel's contingency fee of approximately $1.6 million plus disbursements, applying the Smith Estate factors, and approved a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff to be paid from counsel's fees.

At a status hearing under Rule 48.14, the defendants sought dismissal of a personal injury action for delay following prolonged inactivity and incomplete document production.

The court reviewed the transition from the former Rule 48.14 to the revised rule effective January 1, 2015 and considered whether the plaintiff had shown cause why the action should not be dismissed.

Although the plaintiff’s delay in delivering an affidavit of documents was inexcusable, the court found no demonstrated prejudice to the defendants and noted that procedural remedies such as motions for further and better disclosure had been available.

Considering the relatively modest delay and the policy reflected in the amended rule extending the time to set an action down for trial, the court permitted the action to proceed.

The court ordered sworn affidavits of documents and additional productions within 45 days and directed that a pre‑trial conference be scheduled.

Following a successful partial summary judgment motion in a medical malpractice action, the plaintiffs sought costs of $169,022 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity, finding no bad faith by the defendant physician.

However, noting the defendant's refusal to concede uncontroverted medical evidence, the court found a higher than normal partial indemnity award was justified.

Costs were fixed at $60,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff was injured in a single-car rollover accident after hitting a pothole on a municipal road.

She did not provide written notice of her claim to the municipality until almost two years later.

The municipality moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred under s. 44(10) of the Municipal Act.

The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the delay under s. 44(12), and the municipality was prejudiced because the road had been resurfaced and it lost the opportunity to conduct a timely investigation.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant municipality following a motor vehicle accident.

After the action was set down for trial, the defendant sought leave under Rule 48.04 to bring a motion for summary judgment based on the plaintiffs' failure to provide notice within 10 days as required by the Municipal Act.

The court found no substantial and unexpected change in circumstances, but granted leave on the basis that the summary judgment motion had merit and proceeding with it would not cause non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiffs.