C. Bredt

The plaintiff railway company sought an ex parte interim injunction to restrain protestors from blockading its Toronto-Montreal main line.

The protestors, who were members of a First Nation, claimed to be showing support for First Nations chiefs in an upcoming meeting with the Prime Minister.

The court granted the injunction, finding that the plaintiff had established a strong case of trespass and tortious interference, and that the blockade was causing irreparable harm to the plaintiff and its customers.

The court held that neither the expressive nature of the protest nor the aboriginal identity of the protestors altered the balance of convenience, which overwhelmingly favoured the plaintiff.

The plaintiff railway company sought to continue an interim injunction restraining aboriginal protesters from blockading its spur line.

The blockade was causing irreparable economic harm to the plaintiff and its customers.

The local police had refused to enforce the initial injunction, citing a desire to negotiate a peaceful resolution and maintain goodwill with the aboriginal community.

The court found that the protesters were trespassing and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The court continued the injunction, removing a clause that explicitly recognized police tactical discretion, but declined to schedule contempt proceedings due to the police's unwillingness to enforce the court's orders.

The court heard two separate motions to strike or stay pending summary judgment motions on the Commercial List.

Applying the principles from Combined Air and the proportionality requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that concerns about the appropriateness of summary judgment motions should be addressed through case management rather than formal motions to strike.

The court reviewed the proposed summary judgment motions in both actions and concluded that neither was an appropriate candidate for summary judgment due to the complexity of the issues, the voluminous records, and the need for a full trial to appreciate the evidence.

Both summary judgment motions were directed not to proceed, and the parties were ordered to prepare for trial.