Anastasia Reklitis

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.

Purolator Inc. sought and was granted an injunction against unknown persons, including members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), who were obstructing access to and egress from its Scarborough facility.

The court determined that the special rules for labour injunctions under section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act did not apply, as Purolator was a third party to the Canada Post-CUPW labour dispute and not an alter ego of Canada Post.

Applying the conventional test for an interim injunction, the court found a strong prima facie case of nuisance due to prolonged obstruction, irreparable harm to Purolator's critical delivery services, and that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction.

The court also addressed the lack of prior notice to CUPW for the initial ex parte order, noting it was problematic but did not warrant refusing the injunction given the strength of Purolator's case.

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 respondent lawyers moved to quash the clients' appeal from an assessment officer's certificates regarding fees and costs.

The clients brought a cross-motion to extend the time for their notice of appeal.

The court declined to determine the motion to quash independently of the cross-motion to extend time, noting that assessing the extension of time requires evaluating the merits of the appeal.

Both motions were adjourned to be heard together with the main appeal for efficiency.

The plaintiff, Haidar Omarali, brought a motion for summary judgment on 13 certified common issues in a class action against Just Energy Group Inc., Just Energy Corp., and Just Energy Ontario LP.

The core issues concerned whether the defendants' 8000 sales agents were employees or independent contractors under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and if employees, whether they were exempt as outside salespersons or fell within the "route salesperson" exception.

The court found diametrically conflicting evidence regarding the level of control exercised by the defendants over the sales agents, raising serious credibility issues and requiring substantial clarification.

Due to these evidentiary conflicts, the insufficiency of evidence to make class-wide determinations, and the preclusion of a "mini-trial" approaching the dimensions of a full trial by s. 34(3) of the Class Proceedings Act, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

All 13 common issues were directed to proceed to a focused trial.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following its dismissal of a motion by a law firm seeking a charging order or lien against damages and costs awarded to its client.

The law firm sought no costs or alternatively $2,500, arguing the issue was novel and of public importance.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of $25,214.42, arguing the motion lacked merit and was an attempt to burden him with additional costs.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the law firm's arguments and refusing to permit set-off against legal fees owed by the respondent.

The law firm sought reconsideration of the court's decision on its motion for a charging order or solicitor's lien.

The court denied the request for reconsideration, noting that the law firm had already addressed the merits of obtaining a charging order in its written submissions and that the test for a charging order and solicitor's lien is the same.

A law firm sought a charging order or solicitor's lien on funds awarded to its client in a successful civil action.

The client had recovered $390,000 in damages and $550,000 in costs at trial, with an additional $50,000 in costs awarded on appeal.

The law firm claimed $360,836.88 in unpaid fees and sought to secure this amount through either a charging order under the Solicitors Act or a lien under the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The client contested the amount owed and initiated an assessment process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that while it had jurisdiction to grant such relief, the law firm failed to establish that the client was unable or unwilling to pay.

A solicitor firm moved for a charging order under section 34(1) of the Solicitors Act to secure approximately $360,000 in outstanding fees and disbursements incurred in both trial and appeal proceedings.

The client had initiated assessment proceedings against the solicitor.

The motion judge expressed uncertainty regarding the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction to grant such charging orders, particularly regarding fees incurred in the Superior Court of Justice versus those incurred on appeal.

Finding the jurisdictional question to be significant and best determined by a panel, the motion was adjourned to a full panel of the Court of Appeal.