The recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Edgewater Park Lodge Inc. v. Cadman et al., 2025 ONSC 1295 sheds light on key issues related to business name registration, passing off, and injunctive relief. In Edgewater Park Lodge, the applicant successfully sought a permanent injunction against the respondents for their use of the business name “Red Canoe Family Restaurant,” which the court found to be deceptively similar to the applicant’s existing “Red Canoe Restaurant.”
The appellant, operating since 2018, had an established reputation and goodwill in its restaurant business, particularly under the name “Red Canoe Restaurant.” The respondents registered and operated “Red Canoe Family Restaurant” in 2023 within the same regional district. The appellant sought relief under the Business Name Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.17 (“BNA”), arguing that the respondents’ business name was misleading and likely to cause confusion among consumers. The applicant also sought compensation under section 6(2) of the BNA and an order compelling the cancellation of the respondents’ business name.
The respondents attempted to counter the applicant’s claims by arguing that the words “Family Restaurant” distinguished their name sufficiently from “Red Canoe Restaurant.” They also contended that an application was an improper procedural vehicle for the dispute, asserting that the matter should have been brought as an action rather than an application. However, the court, relying on Rule 1.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found that there were no material factual disputes requiring a trial and that the matter could be determined expeditiously via an application.
A key aspect of the court’s analysis was the application of the common law doctrine of passing off, as established in Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Apotex Inc, [1992] 3 SCR 120. The court found that the applicant satisfied the three-part test for passing off: (1) it demonstrated goodwill associated with its business name; (2) it provided evidence of actual or potential public deception due to the similarity in names; and (3) it showed that there was a likelihood of damage resulting from consumer confusion. The court emphasized that the respondents’ own social media interactions acknowledged potential confusion, further supporting the applicant’s claim.
The evidence before the court included online search results, social media activity, and customer feedback, all of which indicated a high likelihood of confusion between the two businesses. The court found that the respondents’ attempt to differentiate their name by adding “Family Restaurant” was insufficient to eliminate the risk of misrepresentation. Furthermore, the court gave weight to Google search results that displayed both businesses under similar queries, reinforcing the claim that customers were likely to be misled.
Ultimately, the court granted a permanent injunction against the respondents, preventing them from using the name “Red Canoe Family Restaurant” or any similar variation in their business operations, marketing, or online presence. The court also ordered the cancellation of the respondents’ business name registration. The respondents were further directed to remove all online references to the infringing name within 30 days.
This decision serves as a significant precedent for businesses seeking to protect their brand identity against misleadingly similar names. The court’s willingness to apply a liberal interpretation of procedural rules ensures that businesses can efficiently seek relief against infringers without unnecessary litigation delays. The ruling underscores the importance of distinct business names and highlights the legal risks associated with adopting names that are deceptively similar to established brands. Parties are encouraged to consult with legal counsel to determine if a party is infringing on its brand identity and whether litigation is an appropriate avenue of redress for any potential losses.
At Gilbertson Davis LLP, our lawyers can assist you with matters involving Business Litigation, Commercial and Civil Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Brand Protection, and can aid in resolving your legal issues in a timely and cost-effective manner. Please contact Gilbertson Davis LLP to schedule a consultation with one of our lawyers.
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
