Successfully defeated the Plaintiff’s claims that he was entitled to dissolve the Defendant accounting partnership upon his withdrawal and that he was entitled to be paid for a portion of the partnership’s goodwill, after a four-week trial. The Court found that, despite there being no written partnership agreement at the time of the Plaintiff’s departure, the terms of the agreement were clear from the conduct of the partners over the many years that the Plaintiff was a partner. This conduct indicated that a departing partner is not entitled to a payment for goodwill on departure, and such departure does not trigger the dissolution of the partnership.
Successfully obtained leave to amend the Statement of Claim. The Defendant resisted the Plaintiff's amendments on the grounds that they withdrew admissions, that the Plaintiff was asserting a new cause of action after the expiry of a limitation period and that the amendments would be an abuse of process because they contradicted prior affidavit evidence and judicial determinations. In granting leave, the Court found that the amendments did not withdraw admissions and that even if they did, the Plaintiff met the test for doing so. The Court also found that the limitation period did not start to run until the Plaintiff had actual knowledge of the new cause of action, which did not occur until it reviewed the Defendant’s documentary productions relating to the original claim.
Successfully defeated an application to set aside an arbitral award obtained by the Respondent. The Respondent had made loans, whose repayment depended on completion of punch list items at each of two solar energy construction projects, to the Applicant. At arbitration, the conditions for repayment were found to have been satisfied and the Applicant was ordered to repay the loans to the Respondent. In reviewing the Arbitrator's decision, the Court found that the Arbitrator had not failed to decide an issue before him and had not denied the Applicant natural justice or procedural fairness. SkyPower sought leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal, but its application was dismissed.
Successfully obtained a discharge of two certificates of pending litigation the Plaintiff had obtained by way of an ex parte motion. The Plaintiff transferred title to the subject properties to the Defendant in 1997. In the underlying action, the Plaintiff sought a declaration that the Defendant held these properties in trust for him. In discharging the certificates of pending litigation, the Court found that the Plaintiff had omitted a material fact, made an erroneous statement to the Court and misrepresented the contents of a letter from the Defendant's solicitor when he brought his ex parte motion.Read Decision
Successfully brought a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the corporate plaintiff for fraudulent conversion against two of its former employees. The Plaintiff was also granted tracing at law for all monies had and received by several family members of the former employees.
Successfully defeated a motion by Bell Canada for an interlocutory injunction restraining Rogers Communications Inc. and Rogers Cable Communications Inc. from claiming their internet service is the “fastest” or the “most reliable”, based on allegations that Rogers’ advertising is false and misleading and in violation of the Competition Act and the Trade-marks Act.
Successfully defeated a motion by Bell Canada for an interlocutory injunction restraining Rogers Communications Inc. and Rogers Cable Communications Inc. from claiming Rogers’ television, internet or wireless services are more reliably available than the comparable services provided by Bell Canada, based on allegations of false advertising violations of the Competition Act and the Trade-marks Act..
Successfully resisted a motion to set aside a Mareva injunction (obtained in relation to allegations of a substantial fraud) based on allegations of material non-disclosure in the initial ex parte application. The Court refused to set aside the injunction and, among other things, held that any omissions or errors in the initial application were neither material nor deliberate.
Successfully defeated a motion for an interlocutory injunction restraining Rogers Communications Inc. and Rogers Cable Communications Inc. from claiming that, in contrast to Bell Canada, they provide internet speeds their customers can count on, based on allegations of false advertising and violations of the Competition Act and the Trade-marks Act and the tort of injurious falsehood.
Successfully resisted a motion for an interlocutory injunction by an officer and shareholder to halt the sale of a company pursuant to an asset purchase agreement containing a five-year non-competition clause, based on allegations of breach of fiduciary duty by the negotiating shareholder, the company, and its legal counsel.