Christopher J. Rae

The appellant union engaged in secondary picketing at the respondent's premises during a lawful strike against Canada Post.

The respondent obtained an ex parte injunction under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The union appealed, arguing the injunction should have been governed by s. 102, which requires notice for injunctions connected to a labour dispute.

Although the underlying dispute had settled and the appeal was moot, the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to hear the case.

The Court held that s. 102 applies whenever an injunction is sought to restrain picketing that has an identifiable and distinct connection with an underlying labour dispute, regardless of whether the moving party is a direct disputant.

Because the required notice under s. 102 was not provided, the injunction was issued without jurisdiction and was set aside.

Following a successful application to enforce a personal guarantee, the applicant sought costs on a substantial and full indemnity basis, relying on the terms of the guarantee and a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The respondents argued the requested amount was excessive for a simple application.

The court agreed the applicant was entitled to elevated costs but discounted the requested amount by approximately 10% to reflect a fair and reasonable quantum, awarding $145,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant sought to enforce a personal guarantee signed by the respondent for debts owed by his cinema company.

The respondent argued the guarantee was unenforceable due to an alleged oral representation that it would not be enforced, and alternatively, that it was unconscionable.

The court held that the matter was appropriate for an application under Rule 14, as the bald allegation of an oral representation lacked credibility and did not require a trial.

The court also rejected the unconscionability defence, finding no unequal bargaining power or improvident bargain.

Judgment was granted in favour of the applicant for the outstanding debt of over $2 million.

The applicant/appellant commenced a second application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) seeking damages and declaratory relief against her insurer and various non-insurer parties for alleged tortious conduct related to her statutory accident benefits (SABS) claims.

The LAT dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting it had no authority to award damages or make orders against non-insurers.

The applicant/appellant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and subsequently dismissed the proceedings as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, finding that the LAT lacks statutory jurisdiction to grant the requested relief and that the proceedings were an impermissible collateral attack on a prior final LAT decision.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether an injunction restraining secondary picketing by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers at a Purolator facility was governed by section 101 or section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The majority held that the definition of "labour dispute" in section 102 encompasses secondary picketing, and therefore, the appeal route lies to the Court of Appeal without leave under section 102(10).

The dissenting judge would have quashed the appeal, holding that the order was made under section 101 and thus appealable only to the Divisional Court with leave.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation and quantum of costs following the dismissal of a motion for intervention by Gregory John Monforton, the former lawyer for the plaintiffs, in a complex civil action.

The court reviews the governing legal principles for costs in Ontario, including the discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure, and applies them to the facts.

The court finds that the three sets of responding parties—CP Rail, Andrew Williams, and the Corporation of the Town of Lakeshore—are each entitled to their own costs, rejects the argument that only one set of costs should be awarded, and reduces the amount claimed by CP Rail for preparation of its factum as excessive.

The court fixes costs in the amounts of $40,553.48 to CP Rail, $16,276.61 to Andrew Williams, and $20,110.95 to Lakeshore, all payable by the proposed intervenor.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a lower court decision dated October 21, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $10,000.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that allowed an injured Ontario worker to sue an out-of-province employee and his Schedule 1 employer in Ontario.

The tribunal had held that the statutory bar to civil actions under s. 28 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 did not apply because the out-of-province employee had no connection to Ontario, relying on the constitutional doctrine of extra-territoriality.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the tribunal misapplied the constitutional doctrine, as the legislation regulates the property and civil rights of the injured Ontario worker, not the out-of-province defendant.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal to interpret s. 28 without the extra-territoriality considerations.

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.

Glycobiosciences Inc. (Glyco) sought leave for its non-lawyer president, Kevin Drizen, to represent the corporation in an application before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

This application sought the same relief previously denied by the Federal Court, specifically an order requiring L'Oreal to delete confidential information.

The court dismissed the motion, affirming that corporations must generally be represented by lawyers and that the desire to save legal fees does not constitute a barrier to access to justice.

The court also noted Mr. Drizen's history of unsuccessful litigation and abuse of process in previous related matters.

A proposed intervenor, a former lawyer for the plaintiffs, sought leave to intervene in a motion concerning the interpretation of a settlement agreement.

The intervenor argued he might be adversely affected by the outcome due to a potential professional negligence claim.

The court found that while the intervenor met the "adversely affected" criterion under Rule 13.01(1)(b), his intervention was not warranted.

The court determined that the proposed evidence was subject to solicitor-client and settlement privilege, which had not been waived, thus preventing a useful contribution.

Furthermore, the intervention would cause undue delay and prejudice to the existing parties, particularly the minor plaintiffs, in a private dispute.

The motion for intervention was dismissed.

The respondent union brought a motion to dismiss the applicant employer's application for judicial review for delay.

The employer had failed to perfect its application within the court-ordered timetable or the 30-day period under the Rules of Civil Procedure, resulting in a delay of at least 11 months.

The court found the delay excessive, the employer's explanation unreasonable, and noted prejudice to the union due to the prolonged uncertainty and the employer's attempt to substantively amend its application.

The motion was granted and the application for judicial review was dismissed.

This appeal addresses issues of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens in a complex international insurance coverage dispute.

Vale and RSA initiated actions in Ontario seeking coverage for environmental liabilities, primarily in Ontario, after Travelers commenced a similar action in New York.

The motion judge largely found Ontario had jurisdiction and was not forum non conveniens, except for North River.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurers' appeals, affirming Ontario's jurisdiction over them, and allowed Vale's appeal, finding Ontario also had jurisdiction over North River.

The court emphasized that a comprehensive general liability insurer underwriting Ontario risks connects itself to Ontario for jurisdictional purposes, and that the "first-to-file" rule does not automatically determine the appropriate forum.

Air Canada applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision allowing a union grievance.

The arbitrator had directed Air Canada to stop applying the off-duty status provision of the collective agreement unless it established a discontinuation of its revenue operations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's conclusion that Air Canada failed to establish a continued 90% reduction in business as of January 2021 was reasonable and supported by the record.

The applicant greenhouse operator challenged a municipal by-law restricting artificial lighting as interfering with normal farm practices.

Before the hearing, the municipality repealed the challenged by-law and replaced it with a new one.

The municipality brought a motion to dismiss the application as frivolous because the underlying by-law no longer existed.

The Board granted the motion, finding the issues moot and refusing to hear the application, without prejudice to the applicant bringing a new application regarding the replacement by-law.

The applicant greenhouse operator brought an application alleging that a municipal by-law restricting greenhouse lighting interfered with normal farm practices.

Before the hearing, the respondent municipality repealed the challenged by-law and replaced it with a new one.

The municipality brought a motion under section 8(1) of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 to dismiss the application as frivolous because the underlying by-law no longer existed.

The Board granted the motion, finding the issues moot, and refused to hear the application, without prejudice to the applicant bringing a new application regarding the replacement by-law.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dated December 20, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to one responding party on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $5,000.

No costs were awarded to the other responding parties as no factum was filed.

Supplemental reasons issued to correct an error in the court's previous decision (2022 ONSC 12).

The court corrected paragraph 4 to clarify that Lloyds should not have been listed as a party challenging the forum of the action.