Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Injunctive relief sought to prevent publication of confidential information and false ownership claims.

• Plaintiffs relied on prior settlement agreement with confidentiality obligations from a dissolved business venture.

• Allegations included copyright claims and misrepresentations targeting product distributors.

• The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding breach of confidentiality and passing off.

• Irreparable harm was established due to risk of public disclosure and damage to business goodwill.

• Injunction granted and costs awarded to plaintiffs despite last-minute consent from the defendant.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties involved
The plaintiffs in this case were SaNOtize Research and Development Corp., and its co-founders, Dr. Christopher Miller and Dr. Gilly Regev. The defendants were Trent Leroy Smith, a former business associate of the plaintiffs, and his entity Element Ventures (Canada) LP. SaNOtize is a Vancouver-based pharmaceutical company involved in global clinical-stage therapeutics. The dispute arose from Smith’s historical involvement in a now-defunct venture called Bovicor Pharmatech Inc., where he served as a business developer until his termination in 2016. The relationship between the parties had already generated significant prior litigation, including a settled lawsuit in 2017, and several subsequently dismissed actions initiated by Smith.

Basis of the dispute
The plaintiffs applied for an interlocutory injunction against Smith and Element Ventures. They alleged that Smith had threatened to publish confidential data originally accessed through his role at Bovicor, including sensitive business and regulatory materials related to a 2015 agreement with Eli Lilly & Co. Additionally, they claimed that Smith falsely represented ownership of SaNOtize’s patented products—especially the VirX Nasal Spray—on the Element Ventures website and in communications with SaNOtize’s international distributor, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals. These representations were alleged to constitute passing off and false advertising under the Competition Act.

Confidentiality obligations and past settlement
Central to the plaintiffs’ argument was a 2017 mutual release and settlement agreement signed by Smith, which imposed a continuing obligation to keep Bovicor-related information confidential. The plaintiffs, although not signatories to the agreement, claimed standing as third-party beneficiaries due to their prior roles as directors of Bovicor. Smith had threatened in writing to publicly release data unless he received a $150,000 payment and had already sent a cease-and-desist letter to Glenmark, asserting copyright ownership over the nasal spray.

Legal test and court’s reasoning
The court applied the traditional three-part test for interlocutory injunctive relief: (1) a serious issue to be tried, (2) irreparable harm, and (3) balance of convenience. The judge found the threshold for a serious issue was clearly met in relation to both the alleged breaches of confidentiality and the misrepresentations concerning product ownership. The potential release of confidential information was seen as creating irreparable harm that could not be undone by monetary compensation, especially as the plaintiffs did not know the full extent of the data in Smith’s possession. Furthermore, the court noted Smith’s potential impecuniosity, which increased the risk that damages would not be recoverable.

Outcome and costs
Although Smith had sent an email just before the hearing consenting to the relief sought (excluding one request that had already become moot), he did not appear in court, and no formal consent order was prepared. The court proceeded with the hearing and granted the injunction on terms largely matching the plaintiffs’ notice of application. The judge found it appropriate to maintain the procedural momentum of the case, especially given Smith’s litigation history and late communications. The plaintiffs were also awarded lump-sum costs in the amount of $1,150, payable forthwith and in any event of the cause.

Conclusion
The decision emphasizes the enforceability of prior confidentiality agreements even years after the original relationship has ended, especially where reputational harm and misuse of proprietary claims are at stake. The case also illustrates how injunctive relief can be an effective interim remedy in disputes involving trade secrets, intellectual property misrepresentation, and misleading business communications.