Jeffrey Arthur Patterson

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 plaintiffs brought a motion seeking orders authorizing a receiver to take possession of a residential property, evict occupants, and secure the property following findings of fraud in earlier proceedings.

A responding party brought cross-motions seeking a declaration that the property constituted a matrimonial home under the Family Law Act and requesting related relief to prevent enforcement against the property.

The court held that the transfer of the property to the responding party had already been determined at trial to be a fraudulent conveyance intended to defeat creditors, and that the responding party could not reopen factual issues after declining to testify or adduce evidence at trial.

The court further found that the responding party had consented to the mortgage transactions and that the Family Law Act did not protect the property from the plaintiffs’ tracing remedies arising from fraudulently obtained funds.

The motion was granted and the cross-motions were dismissed.