Dante D. Gatti

The applicant sought to vary an interlocutory injunction previously granted on April 4, 2025, which restrained a blockade at the entrance of its premises at 2801 Howard Avenue.

The applicant sought to expand the injunction to include multiple additional addresses and a public street.

The respondents argued that the variation required the applicant to meet the full test for a civil injunction, including the stringent requirements under section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act for labour disputes.

The court found that the context had fundamentally changed from the original April order, as the parties were now engaged in a labour dispute following a lockout.

The court granted the motion in part, expanding the injunction to include the entrance at 305 Charles Street but rejecting the broader expansion sought.

The court found that the respondents had unlawfully obstructed two entrances for unreasonably lengthy periods but did not find evidence of other unlawful picketing or risk of physical harm.

This costs endorsement follows the granting of an interlocutory injunction to restrain a blockade at the applicant’s premises.

The court considered written submissions on costs and, applying the relevant legal principles and factors, ordered the respondents to pay the applicant $14,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The decision reviews the purposes of costs, proportionality, and the appropriateness of awarding costs forthwith after an interlocutory injunction, referencing relevant case law and statutory provisions.

The court granted an interlocutory injunction to Titan Tool & Die Limited, restraining Unifor, its Local 195, and named individuals from blockading the applicant’s premises and obstructing the removal of customer-owned tooling.

The decision addresses whether the dispute was a “labour dispute” under the Courts of Justice Act, the procedural and jurisdictional issues raised, and the application of the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctions.

The court found the protest was not a labour dispute, that the requirements for an injunction were met even if it were, and that the balance of convenience, irreparable harm, and serious issue to be tried all favoured granting the injunction.

The claimant sought compensation under the Expropriations Act for the market value of expropriated lands and damages for injurious affection relating to a septic system and the alleged loss of an unregistered easement for truck access.

The Ontario Land Tribunal determined the market value of the taking was $16,500.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for injurious affection, finding no valid easement existed, truck access was not materially impaired, and the septic system issues were fully mitigated by the respondent's repairs and offer to reconvey the affected land.

The Tribunal also held that the respondent's offer to reconvey land did not constitute a Notice of Abandonment under section 41 of the Act.

The City of Windsor sought to expropriate lands owned by the property owners to consolidate them with an adjacent parcel acquired by the City due to tax arrears, in order to resolve an encroachment issue and facilitate future development.

The property owners requested a Hearing of Necessity under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the proposed expropriation was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the City's objectives, noting that the owners offered no evidence to contradict the City's stated intentions and that the case law relied upon by the owners was distinguishable.

The Claimant brought a motion for costs on a substantial indemnity scale following the Tribunal's dismissal of the Respondent's motion for leave to amend its Reply to plead a limitation period under the Expropriations Act.

The Claimant argued the Respondent's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and in bad faith due to an 11-year delay in seeking the amendment.

The Tribunal dismissed the costs motion, finding that while the Respondent's motion was unsuccessful, it was not devoid of merit, did not cause delay, and did not meet the high threshold of unreasonable or bad faith conduct required to award costs.

The City of Windsor expropriated a 3.04-acre property from the claimants.

At the compensation hearing, the claimants' counsel sought a last-minute adjournment and later moved to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship; both motions were denied to prevent prejudice.

On the merits, the Tribunal rejected the claimants' appraiser's highest and best use analysis, finding it failed to consider physical and financial feasibility.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's appraiser's conclusion that the highest and best use was continued residential use, but adjusted the valuation by excluding a comparable sale made under power of sale.

The Tribunal awarded $394,272 in compensation for the market value of the expropriated property.

The appellant sold a property to the respondent subject to a vendor take-back mortgage, which required the appellant to remove an easement from title by a specific deadline to avoid a reduction in the purchase price.

The appellant obtained a court order discharging the easement and registered it on title before the deadline.

The respondent argued the condition was not met because the order was still subject to appeal at the deadline.

The Court of Appeal held that the registered discharge order satisfied the mortgage condition, as the land titles system guarantees title upon registration and no stay of the order had been sought.

The Ministry of Transportation brought a motion for leave to amend its Reply to plead the limitation period under section 22 of the Expropriations Act, six years after the original Reply was filed.

The claimant opposed the motion, arguing that the delay caused non-compensable prejudice as evidence and witnesses from the time of the expropriation were no longer available.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the six-year delay was so lengthy that prejudice was presumed, and the claimant had also demonstrated actual prejudice.

The Ministry failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice or provide an adequate explanation for the delay.

A second Case Management Conference was held regarding a claim for compensation arising from the expropriation of a portion of the claimants' lands by the City of Windsor.

The parties submitted a draft hearing plan prior to the status hearing and confirmed they were content with it.

The Tribunal approved the hearing plan and confirmed the parties' readiness to proceed with the scheduled three-day video hearing.

The Tribunal held a status hearing regarding an expropriation proceeding brought by the claimant seeking compensation from the Ministry of Transportation.

The parties updated the Tribunal on the preparation of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, which were subsequently filed and approved.

The Tribunal scheduled a nine-day video hearing to commence on May 15, 2023, after the parties reported that settlement discussions had been unsuccessful.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding a claim for land compensation under the Expropriations Act.

Counsel for the claimants failed to attend the scheduled video hearing without prior notice.

The Tribunal proceeded in his absence, noting a concerning trend of non-attendance by counsel in expropriation proceedings.

The Tribunal reviewed and amended a draft Procedural Order provided by the respondent, set dates for a three-day video hearing on the merits, and scheduled a final status hearing.

A status hearing was held regarding a claim for land compensation following an expropriation by the Ministry of Transportation.

The parties advised that draft Minutes of Settlement were under review by the Ministry.

The Tribunal directed the Ministry to advise as soon as possible whether the settlement was executed, and ordered that the scheduled hearing dates would remain on a peremptory basis if the settlement was not finalized.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a noting of default in a four-year-old mortgage action.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the proposed defence lacked merit.

The court considered principles of proportionality and the preference for matters to be determined on their merits.

Given the plaintiff's significant delay in prosecuting the action after the defendant made a substantial payment, and the absence of demonstrated prejudice, the court granted the defendant's motion to set aside the noting of default, allowing the defendant to file a Statement of Defence.

The claimant sought compensation for land expropriated by the Ministry of Transportation.

Following a period of non-communication from the respondent regarding an unformalized settlement, the claimant requested a case management conference.

The respondent's counsel failed to attend the conference.

The Tribunal scheduled a four-day hearing on the merits and a prior status hearing to confirm if the settlement had been finalized.

The City of Windsor brought a motion for security for costs in the amount of $100,000 against the claimant, whose leasehold interest was expropriated in 1999.

The City argued the claimant was an inactive corporation with insufficient assets to pay a potential costs award.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the claimant had a prima facie case supported by three expert reports (including one from the City's own expert) indicating a leasehold advantage.

The Tribunal also found that the City's delay in bringing the motion until shortly before the hearing was prejudicial to the claimant, and that ordering security for costs could unjustly prevent a meritorious claim from proceeding.

At a Case Management Conference for a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act, the Tribunal addressed delays in the production of the respondent's expert report due to medical circumstances and a change in counsel.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to produce its expert report by a specified date and allowed the claimant time to reply.

Both parties requested Tribunal-led mediation, which the Tribunal recommended.

The Tribunal declined the claimant's request to schedule an 8-day hearing, finding that a 4- or 5-day hearing would likely be sufficient given the anticipated number of witnesses.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to obtain a status update and set a new hearing date for a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

The parties agreed to proceed to a 6-day virtual hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing for March 7, 2022, and directed the parties to update the Procedural Order accordingly.

At a Case Management Conference regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act, the Tribunal was advised that the claimant's appraisal had been served and the respondent Ministry had requested 18 documents to review it.

The claimant confirmed the documents were en route.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for October 1, 2021, to allow the Ministry's experts time to review the materials and report.

The applicant sought an order of possession for his property, which was initially expected to be unopposed by the respondent.

The respondent, who is the alleged complainant in criminal charges against the applicant, appeared unrepresented.

After amicus counsel was appointed for the respondent, the court expressed significant concerns about its jurisdiction to grant the order, the lack of a cited statutory or rule basis for the application, and the potential for civil proceedings, especially with costs sought, to intimidate an unrepresented complainant in a domestic/sexual assault case.

The court viewed such an application as potentially an "end run" around the criminal court's jurisdiction.

For these reasons, the court declined to make the requested order and adjourned the matter.