Court Grants Interim, Interim Injunction Without Specific Evidence of Harm

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.Brand Protection, Breach of Confidentiality Agreement, Breach of Confidentiality Clause, Breach of Non-Competition Agreement, Breach of Non-Competition Clause, Breach of Non-Solicitation Agreement, Breach of Non-Solicitation Clause, Business Litigation, Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Confidentiality Agreement, Confidentiality Clause, Contract Disputes, Employment, Injunction & Specific Performance, Non-Compete, Non-Competition Agreement, Non-Competition Clause, Non-Solicitation Agreement, Non-Solicitation Clause0 Comments

In Knowmadics v. Cinnamon, 2018 ONSC 4451 (CanLII) the plaintiff company sought an urgent interim, interim injunction regarding an app sold by the defendants pending the hearing of a motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The plaintiff sold specialized computer software.  The individual defendant was employed by the plaintiff and signed an employment agreement, including a confidentiality and non-competition clause.  The defendant also had a business, the corporate co-defendant, which did subcontracting work for the plaintiff after the defendant resigned from employment with the plaintiff.  The corporate defendant signed a non-disclosure agreement with the plaintiff.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were selling certain software that directly competed with the plaintiff’s software and infringed the plaintiff’s copyrights.  The plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants. After commencing the action, the plaintiff alleged that they learned that the defendants were also selling a certain app over which the plaintiffs asserted ownership.  The plaintiff brought to urgent motion for an interim, interim injunction to stop the defendants from selling the app. The  judge considered the test for granting an injunction:

  1. Serious Issue to be Tried: the judge agreed that there were serious issues to be tried regarding the ownership of the app and whether the use of the app was a violation of the corporate defendant’s non-disclosure agreement.
  2. Irreparable harm:  the judge stated that the plaintiff had not provided any specific examples of its allegations of lost sales or communications from customers or potential customers expressing confusion between the plaintiff’s and defendants’ products.  However, the judge accepted that the plaintiff had brought its motion within four days of learning that the defendants were using the app, such that it was not possible for the plaintiff to collect specific examples. The judge found that the lack of specific examples of a lost sale or a confused existing or potential customer was not fatal to the plaintiff’s argument on the issue of irreparable harm.  The judge accepted that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the relief requested was not granted on an interim basis.
  3. Balance of Convenience: the judge accepted that the plaintiff had been in business for a number of years, had an established customer base, and that there was a potential for erosion of that base if the defendants were permitted to continue to use the app pending the motion for an interlocutory injunction being heard.  There was no evidence of potential erosion of the defendants’ customer base pending the motion for an interlocutory injunction being heard.

The judge granted the interim, interim injunction restraining the defendants from reproducing, selling, or offering for sale or installing the app, and requiring its removal from the corporate defendant’s website pending the hearing of the interlocutory injunction motion.

The lawyers at Gilbertson Davis LLP have experience with seeking and responding to injunctions in respect of non-competition, non-solicitation and non-disclosure agreements, as well as intellectual property litigation and business litigation.  Please contact us for an initial consultation.

Brief informational summaries about insurance litigation, commercial litigation and family law litigation matters in the courts of Ontario and Canada are periodically published on our website. Please note that our website content is for informational purposes only, and should not be construed or relied upon to provide legal advice. If you require legal advice, please request an initial consultation with Gilbertson Davis LLP using the Request Consultation Form on this webpage or by contacting our Intake Coordinator on (416) 979-2020, ext. 223 (both subject to the Terms of Use described on our Contact page).
Comments & Opinions by Gilbertson Davis LLP lawyers and staff on its Blog, or in media interviews, appearances or publications, or in professional publications, are personal to them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Firm or anyone at the Firm other than the individual expressing those comments or opinions.

About the Author

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *