) ) PRIDDLE-LUCK PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Plaintiff – v. –, 2017 ONSC 2294

CITATION : Priddle-Luck v. Thompson et al, 2017 ONSC 2294 COURT FILE NO .: 27387/17 DATE : 2017-04-12 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: ) ) PRIDDLE-LUCK PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Plaintiff – and – DENNIS THOMPSON PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, DENNIS THOMPSON, GEORGIE CAMPBELL, BRENDA BEITH, NATHAN DOOL and BDO CANADA LLP Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) R. Douglas Elliot/Shruthi Raman, Counsel for the Plaintiff Orlando M. Rosa, Counsel for the Defendants, Georgie Campbell, Brenda Beith, Nathan Dool and BDO Canada LLP B.

DeLorenzi, Counsel for Dennis Thompson and Dennis Thompson Professional Corporation ) ) ) HEARD: March 9, 2017 GAREAU J. reasons for ruling [ 1 ] Before the court is the plaintiff’s motion for an interim interim interlocutory injunction. The motion for an interim interlocutory is scheduled to be heard on May 29, 2017 to allow counsel an opportunity to conduct cross-examinations on the affidavits filed in respect to the motion. [ 2 ] This matter was argued on March 31, 2017.

In the course of the argument plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he was seeking the following order on an interim interim basis pending the return of the matter to motions court on May 29, 2017: (

a) A mandatory order requiring the defendants to return to the plaintiff any and all client information, client files or other proprietary information belonging to the plaintiff whether in paper or electronic form currently in the possession of the defendants; (

b) A mandatory order requiring disclosure from the defendants of all written communications, in any form, transpiring between Dennis Thompson and Nathan Dool/BDO Canada LLP with respect to the clients of the plaintiff which have since been enticed away by the defendants; (

c) An interim and a permanent interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants herein from using the goodwill and client list of the plaintiff in a manner detrimental to the plaintiff; (

d) An interim and a permanent interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants herein from contacting or soliciting for any

of the plaintiff’s clients until the return of this motion. [3] This action arises out of the sale of the Defendant Thompson’s accounting practice in Thessalon, Ontario to the plaintiff, theformer employment of the defendants Campbell and Beith with the plaintiff and the operation of the accounting practice of Dool andBDO in competition with the plaintiff in the Town of Thessalon, Ontario. [4] In considering this motion, I am mindful of the comments of the Ontario Divisional Court in Traynor and UNUM Life InsuranceCompany of America, (2003) (ON SCDC), 65 O.R. (3d) 7, in which that court states at paragraph 12, We observe at the onset that the granting of a mandatory interlocutory injunction is exceptional relief to be granted only in exceptionalcircumstances. [5] As Kane J. repeated in paragraph 31 of Allstate Insurance v.

Larocque, 164 ACWS (3d), 277, Interlocutory injunctions are considered an ‘”extraordinary” and “drastic” remedy and should only be granted pursuant to strict principlesin circumstances which warrant taking “such a drastic and extraordinary step”. [6] The caution to be exercised is even more so on an interim interim motion where an order may set or limit the conduct andactions of parties prior to further exploration into the merits of the motion through cross-examination on affidavit material and fullargument on transcripts at the interim stage. [7] The test for the granting of an interlocutory injunction is set out in RJR- MacDonald Inc. v Canada, (SCC),[1994] 1 SCR 311.

The three part test which must be established by the party seeking the injunction is :

a) there is a serious issue to be tried;

b) will the moving party suffer unreasonable harm if an injunction is not granted; and

c) the balance of convenience favours granting the relief sought. All of the elements of this three-prong test must be established by the moving party. [8] I do not intend on discussing the evidence and issues in detail in these reasons as I do not want to prejudice in any way the judgewho ultimately hears the motion on an interim basis.

Suffice it to say that at this stage there is a great divergence in the evidence of theparties which can only be more fully explored at the examination stage. [9] After reflecting on the submissions made by counsel for the parties and reviewing the jurisprudence provided by them, I am ofthe view that the three part test as set out in RJR-MacDonald has not been met at this stage of the proceedings. [10] Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for an interim interim interlocutory injunction is dismissed. [11] Costs of this motion are reserved to the judge hearing the interim interlocutory injunction motion. ____________________ Gareau J.

Released: April 12, 2017

CITATION : Priddle-Luck v. Thompson et al, 2017 ONSC 2294 COURT FILE NO .: 27387/17 DATE : 2017-04-12 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: PRIDDLE-LUCK PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION - and – DENNIS THOMPSON PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, DENNIS THOMPSON, GEORGIE CAMPBELL, BRENDA BEITH, NATHAN DOOL and BDO CANADA LLP Ruling on motion Gareau J. Released: April 12, 2017