Derek Noyes

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.

The plaintiff purchased a home from the defendants.

Prior to the sale, the defendants completed a Seller Property Information Statement (SPIS) indicating there were no water or moisture problems, no flooding, and no roof leakage.

In reality, the property had a high water table requiring constant sump pump maintenance, a history of basement flooding, a failing septic system, and a leaking skylight.

The plaintiff sued for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation.

The court found the defendants liable for negligent misrepresentation, as the statements in the SPIS were untrue and the plaintiff reasonably relied on them.

The court awarded damages for remedial work and inconvenience.

The defendants brought a third-party claim against their real estate agent, who had advised them that "fixed" problems did not need to be disclosed.

The court found the agent negligent and ordered the third parties to indemnify the defendants for the damages related to the sump pump issues.