Commercial lawsuits

Commercial lawsuits – partial list

********

$1.4 million cash-and-stock deal for vertical farm operation went to pot after City of Vancouver and EasyPark backed out over marijuana concerns, businessman claims (Business in Vancouver, 17-Mar-2015)
http://www.biv.com/must-read/#lawsuit-week-14-million-cash-and-stock-deal-vertic

Excerpt: Clay Haeber and a numbered company are suing the City of Vancouver and the Parking Corporation of Vancouver (EasyPark) over a scuttled $1.4 million deal to save a vertical farming operation housed in a city-owned parking facility. Haeber and 0993341 B.C. Ltd. filed a notice of civil claim in BC Supreme Court on March 3. According to the lawsuit, the vertical farm began producing salad greens, herbs and spinach in November 2012 using “a unique vertical growing conveyor system holding hundreds of suspended trays which move to maximize exposure to natural light.”

*******

Vancouver (City) v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company, 2015 BCSC 76 – 2015/01/20. Supreme Court.
Court judgment link: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/15/00/2015BCSC0076.htm

The City of Vancouver (the “City”) applies for injunctive relief with respect to the activities of Canadian Pacific Railway Company (“CPR”) on a corridor of land located within the City often referred to as the Arbutus Corridor (“the Corridor”).

Excerpt…

The Undertaking of CPR

[83]         CPR does not suggest that it will operate a railway in the Corridor until it has the required statutory approval. It has provided an undertaking, through its counsel that:

Pursuant to the direction of this Honourable Court, the Defendant Canadian Pacific Railway Company undertakes that it will not operate trains on the portion of rail line which is the subject matter of these proceedings unless and until Transport Canada has inspected that rail line and any issues identified by Transport Canada have been resolved in accordance with the procedures of the Railway Safety Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 32 and any other applicable legislation.

[84]         In light of this undertaking, I find that the City will suffer no irreparable harm if the trains do not run until the required statutory approval is forthcoming. In contrast, CPR will suffer irreparable harm if it is unable to even begin preparations for the resumption of rail use in the Corridor because it is enjoined from any “works of construction, reconstruction, deviation, change and alteration to the Marpole Spur” before statutory approval is obtained for the use of the Corridor for rail purposes.

          iv)      Conclusion with respect to the Second Form of Injunctive           Relief Sought

[85]         I dismiss the application for the second form of injunctive relief sought.

Conclusion

[86]         The City’s applications for injunctive relief are dismissed.

**************

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s