Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Initial injunction upheld against former CEO for alleged fiduciary breaches tied to competing vape brand and misuse of brand-linked social media assets.

• Court reaffirmed British Columbia’s jurisdiction and continued application of the “strong prima facie case” standard for injunctive relief.

• Evidence showed ongoing market presence of competing “Sex Addict” vapes linked to defendant’s earlier actions.

• Delay in purging contempt and continued control issues over corporate social media weighed against variation of the injunction.

• Passage of time did not negate ongoing fiduciary duty in light of continued competitive harm.

• Costs awarded to plaintiff for defending against variation application, with prior contempt fines still outstanding.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and prior injunction
Ignite International Brands, Ltd., a British Columbia vape company, built its brand identity around the public image and social media reach of its then-chairman, CEO, and sole director, Dan Brandon Bilzerian. Through a licensing arrangement, Ignite tied its marketing closely to Bilzerian’s persona, spending tens of millions of dollars on promotional content featuring him. After his removal from executive roles in mid-2024, Bilzerian formed SAVH LLC, launching the “Sex Addict” vape line in direct competition with Ignite.

In the earlier proceedings, Ignite alleged breach of fiduciary duty, misuse of confidential information, and wrongful retention of social media accounts, including the corporate Instagram. The British Columbia Supreme Court upheld jurisdiction over the dispute despite Bilzerian’s Nevada residence, applying the province’s corporate law principles. Finding a strong prima facie case, the court issued a worldwide interlocutory injunction in March 2025 to prevent further competition pending trial, including restrictions on contacting suppliers, promoting other vape brands, and using Ignite’s imagery.

The variation application
In May 2025, Bilzerian applied to vary or set aside the injunction, arguing that any fiduciary duties had expired and that circumstances had materially changed. He cited his abandonment of efforts to be reinstated as a director and claimed the passage of time since his removal ended his obligations. Ignite opposed the application, pointing to his unpurged contempt in a related matter—failure to return control of Ignite’s Instagram account as ordered in October 2024—and ongoing market availability of Sex Addict vapes.

Court’s analysis
Justice Latimer considered but declined to dismiss the application solely on contempt grounds, noting the fines and special costs from the related case remained unpaid. However, these compliance issues, combined with the continued presence of the competing product, were relevant to whether the injunction should stand. The court found no material change in circumstances: Ignite only regained its Instagram account a week before the hearing, the competing products were still on the market due to Bilzerian’s earlier actions, and the brand’s vulnerability remained.

The passage of time did not weaken the strong prima facie case that Bilzerian’s conduct breached ongoing fiduciary duties. The balance of convenience still favored Ignite, which faced irreparable harm without the injunction. The defendant’s claims of financial hardship were not supported by evidence, particularly given his other business interests and valuable real estate holdings.

Outcome
The application to vary or set aside the interlocutory injunction was dismissed. Ignite was awarded costs of the application in any event of the cause. No new damages were awarded at this stage, but Bilzerian still owed $10,000 in fines and $4,500 in special costs from earlier contempt findings. The trial has not yet occurred, though Ignite has taken steps to secure the earliest possible trial date.