Brian Babcock

During a lawful strike at the plaintiff’s manufacturing facility, the employer sought variation of a prior court order governing picketing and requested an injunction against certain strike activities.

Evidence showed incidents of delay, intimidation, and obstruction at the picket line, including targeted delays of supervisory staff and confrontations with delivery vehicles and bus passengers.

The court emphasized that picketing is constitutionally protected expressive activity but may be limited where unlawful conduct occurs.

Applying the modified interlocutory injunction test for labour disputes, the court held that the threshold requirement of demonstrating unsuccessful reasonable efforts to obtain police assistance had not been met.

The injunction was denied, but the court varied earlier orders to simplify wait‑time rules, expand the pedestrian corridor for bus passengers, and clarify police enforcement obligations.

Solicitors sought declarations regarding the validity of contingency fee agreements and the allocation of legal costs between injured plaintiffs and the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) under s. 39 of Regulation 552 to the Health Insurance Act.

The court held the contingency fee agreements did not comply with the Solicitors Act and Regulation 195/04 because they improperly incorporated amounts arising from costs and failed to include mandatory statutory statements.

The court also interpreted the cost‑sharing formula under s. 39(6), concluding that a proportion of costs recovered in the action should be attributed to the plan when determining the plan’s share of taxable costs.

However, the total recovery used in the denominator must include both the plan’s and the injured person’s recoveries.

Declaratory guidance was provided for calculating the plan’s proportional liability for solicitor’s fees.