Plaintiff was granted interim injunction restraining defendants from diverting business from plaintiff or soliciting plaintiff’s clients. Interim injunction was ordered to remain in effect pending cross-examinations on affidavits by both parties and return of hearing of motion for interlocutory injunction. Defendants brought motion for leave to deliver and file three additional affidavits after completion of cross-examinations. Motion was dismissed. Evidence in affidavits did not meet requirement of relevancy because they did not advance matters at issue specifically with respect to interlocutory injunction motion. Only some of evidence in supplementary affidavits actually responded to matters raised on cross-examinations and that evidence was irrelevant to issue of whether interlocutory injunction should issue or be continued. Plaintiff would suffer non-compensable prejudice if further affidavit evidence was admitted. To permit filing of affidavits would have effect of allowing defendants to split case. Defendants failed to provide reasonable explanation as to why new affidavit evidence could not have been delivered prior to cross-examinations.
Sure Track Courier Ltd. v. Kaisersingh
(Dec. 14, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., Goodman J., File No. CV-11-2817-SR) 211 A.C.W.S. (3d) 782 (15 pp.).