Successfully defeated motion for injunction alleging unfair competition (breach of fiduciary duty, passing off). The court found that the moving parties’ undertaking as to damages was insufficient, as there was evidence that one corporate moving party was in dire financial condition, the other corporate moving party had provided no undertaking at all, and the individual moving party adduced no evidence that he had any assets. While the respondents did not cross-examine, the jurisprudence indicates that the moving party must satisfy the court as to the sufficiency of the undertaking. In the circumstances, the court was not satisfied, and the motion was dismissed. The court ordered costs in the full amount sought by the respondents.
Awarded costs of $23,000 with respect to a successful motion for security for costs. The Court found that similar costs awards were made in similar cases, where the complexity of a review of the merits expanded the scope of the motion. This amount was fair and reasonable for this particular motion because it was reasonably complex and was of significant importance to the Defendants.Read Decision
Successfully brought a second motion for security for costs. The Plaintiff argued that the motion was an abuse of process, was res judicata (on the basis of issue estoppel) and that delay by the Defendants in moving for security meant that none should be granted. The Court held that the motion was not res judicata or an abuse of process, as there had been a significant change in the factual matrix since the first (unsuccessful) motion. The corporate plaintiff had demonstrated no prejudice caused by any delay, and the proceedings against these Defendants appeared to have little merit. The Court ordered the Plaintiff to post security in the amount of $130,000.Read Decision
Successfully argued that our client’s lease is a “true” lease, and not a “finance” lease, in the context of proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). After the initial order was granted, the respondent lessee continued to use the vehicles, but took the position that it was not required to make payment for such use, as the lease was in essence a financing lease and not an operating (true) lease under the CCAA. The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta held that the lease is a true lease, and therefore the lessor is entitled to require payment for the use of the leased property, in accordance with section 11.01(a) of the CCAA.Read Decision
Awarded costs of $8,500 with respect to a successful motion to compel the defendant to produce a particular individual as its corporate representative for examinations for discovery.
Successfully transferred a proceeding improperly commenced at the Superior Court of Justice, Oshawa to the Superior Court of Justice, Toronto. The commencement of the proceeding in Oshawa was contrary to a forum and venue selection clause that provided for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Toronto courts. The court found that the forum and venue selection clause was determinative.
Successfully compelled the defendant to produce a particular individual as its corporate representative for examinations for discovery. The court held that the particular individual had sufficient knowledge about the matters in issue in the litigation, had direct involvement in same and, where he did not have personal knowledge, could adequately inform himself.Read Decision
Successfully brought a motion for particulars and inspection of documents as part of a claim alleging, among other things, fraud and conspiracy. The Plaintiffs were ordered to produce all particulars and documents.Read Decision
Successfully claimed damages for fraudulent misrepresentations by the vendors during negotiations for the purchase and sale of a Bell Canada retail store.
Successfully defeated a motion for summary judgment alleging that the Plaintiff, who had been advised to transfer the commuted value of his Teacher’s Pension Plan into an Individual Pension Plan, had suffered no damage.Read Decision