Adam Gilani

The plaintiff sought to extend an ex parte interim injunction restraining the respondents from picketing at its premises in a manner that blocked vehicles.

The respondent union requested amendments to the order, specifically to remove a provision precluding the inducing of breach of contract and to narrow the scope of the order to the specific premises rather than province-wide.

The court dismissed the union's requests, finding that the tort of inducing breach of contract does not capture legitimate free speech or boycotts, and that a province-wide order was a preferable use of judicial resources.

The injunction was extended for a further 30 days.

The plaintiff sought an ex parte interim injunction to restrain secondary picketing at its facility by individuals associated with a union engaged in a strike against the plaintiff's majority shareholder.

The picketers blockaded the facility, significantly delaying the departure of delivery vehicles, including those carrying critical medical supplies.

The court found that the statutory rules for labour injunctions did not apply because there was no labour dispute between the plaintiff and the picketers.

Applying the test for a conventional interim injunction, the court granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding unlawful obstruction, irreparable harm to the plaintiff and its customers, and a balance of convenience favouring the plaintiff.

The defendants moved to dismiss the proposed class proceeding for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiffs did not oppose the dismissal but requested a 60-90 day delay of the effective date to locate new representative plaintiffs for a fresh action.

The court held that s. 29.1 is a mandatory provision and the court lacks discretion to delay the effective date of the dismissal.

The motion to dismiss was granted.

The plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of Canadian cattle farmers against the Government of Canada, alleging negligence in its response to the threat of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as 'mad cow disease'.

The plaintiff claimed that Canada failed to implement a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in a timely manner and failed to prevent cattle imported from the United Kingdom from entering the animal feed chain, which led to the discovery of a BSE-infected Canadian cow in May 2003 and the subsequent closure of international borders to Canadian cattle and beef.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the claim was barred by section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act because the class members had received compensation through various government financial assistance programs.

Furthermore, the court held that Canada did not owe a private law duty of care to the cattle farmers and that its policy decisions regarding the monitoring of imported cattle and the timing of the feed ban were reasonable and did not breach the standard of care.

During a class action trial regarding the federal government's alleged negligence in preventing mad cow disease, the defendant sought to read into evidence discovery transcripts from the current representative plaintiff, the deceased former representative plaintiff, and other class members.

The court denied the request to read in the current representative plaintiff's evidence, applying the rule in Browne v. Dunn, as the plaintiff had already testified and the evidence did not merely fill a gap.

The court also denied leave to read in the deceased former plaintiff's evidence under Rule 31.11(6) and (7), finding the excerpts to be of limited importance and lacking cross-examination.

However, the court permitted the defendant to read in discovery evidence from other class members, as it provided helpful real-world insight into the financial impact on different cattle producers.

During a common issues trial regarding the federal government's alleged negligence in preventing the spread of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (mad cow disease), the plaintiff sought to admit eight foreign public records for the truth of their contents.

The defendant argued the documents should only be admitted to show the government's knowledge of them.

The court held that the documents, which included reports from the World Health Organization and the European Commission, met the criteria for the public documents exception under s. 25 of the Ontario Evidence Act and were admissible for the truth of their contents, though the court reserved judgment on the weight to be given to them.