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 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 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 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.

The applicants sought to rectify the title of the respondents' property to reinstate an easement that provided the only access to their landlocked parcel.

The Land Registry Office had inadvertently deleted the easement from the servient tenement's parcel register in 2005.

The Deputy Director of Titles had previously ordered the easement deleted.

The Superior Court, hearing the matter as a new trial under section 26 of the Land Titles Act, found that the easement was deleted in error and could not be extinguished without an express release.

The court ordered the register rectified to reinstate the easement.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant, Luis Chibante, to answer refusals given during his examination for discovery.

The refusals concerned the use of funds borrowed from Mastronardi Produce and Luis Chibante's business ventures with individuals associated with Mastronardi Produce.

The court, applying principles of discovery scope and proportionality, ordered the defendant to provide a solicitor's trust statement confirming legal fees paid from the borrowed funds and to answer specific questions about his business interests with Mastronardi Produce associates, subject to confidentiality controls.

The plaintiff, Front Construction Industries Inc., brought an action against the defendant, 38-44 Chatham Street East (2012) Limited (the "Owner"), for payment of an unpaid holdback and two claims for extras related to a construction project.

The Owner counterclaimed for significant delay damages, alleging Front Construction's failure to diligently perform work caused a loss of a long-term leasing opportunity.

The court found in favour of Front Construction, allowing its claims for the unpaid holdback and both extras, and dismissed the Owner's counterclaim for delay, concluding that Front Construction was not responsible for the alleged delay or the tenant's failure to occupy the premises.

Luis Chibante brought a motion to strike three paragraphs from Lynne Chibante's statement of claim, alleging abuse of process, prejudice, delay, and no reasonable cause of action.

The paragraphs concerned allegations of wrongdoing related to Golden Fresh in Ohio and accessing private emails, which were deemed outside the scope of the agreed-upon trial of issues concerning Golden Acre in Ontario.

The court granted the motion, finding the paragraphs scandalous, vexatious, irrelevant, and likely to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action.

BDO Canada Limited, the court-appointed receiver of Delta Logistics Transportation Inc., moved for an order requiring 2337764 Ontario Inc. to deliver possession of seven trucks over which 233 asserted a possessory lien under the Repair & Storage Liens Act (RSLA).

The receiver sought to take possession and sell the trucks for the benefit of creditors, arguing its powers derived from the broad court appointment order under the Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act (BIA). 2337764 Ontario Inc. contended that the court lacked jurisdiction, asserting its possessory lien rights and arguing that the matter should proceed under the RSLA's dispute resolution provisions.

The court distinguished the powers of a court-appointed receiver from those of a trustee in bankruptcy, emphasizing the receiver's fiduciary duty to all stakeholders and the supremacy of the court order.

The motion was granted, requiring 2337764 Ontario Inc. to deliver the vehicles to the receiver, with the lien claim to be determined later from the sale proceeds.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order regarding undertakings and refusals.

The court denied the motion, noting that the moving party failed to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure by not filing a motion record, factum, or book of authorities.

Furthermore, the court found no palpable or overriding error in the motion judge's determination of the relevant time period for document production.

The appellants appealed a trial decision fixing the fair value of the respondents' shares in a hotel business following the exercise of dissent rights under the Business Corporations Act.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's valuation of the hotel itself.

The Divisional Court dismissed the cross-appeal, finding no error in the hotel valuation.

However, the Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by rejecting the only expert evidence on share valuation and substituting her own unsupported asset-based calculation.

The Court varied the judgment to impose the en bloc share value of $1,240,500 established by the appellants' expert.

Minority shareholders sought relief under the oppression remedy and dissent and appraisal provisions of the Business Corporations Act after a majority shareholder attempted to restructure the corporation by reducing common shares and issuing scrip certificates that would effectively eliminate the minority’s interests.

The court determined the fair value of the dissenting shareholders’ shares as of the valuation date and rejected a proposed defence of laches, holding that the Limitations Act, 2002 applies to oppression claims and that laches does not apply where the claim is brought within the statutory limitation period.

While some alleged acts of misconduct, including removal of a director and management fees, were not oppressive, the proposed share restructuring scheme was found to be oppressive because its real purpose was to squeeze out the minority shareholders without fair compensation.

The court fixed the fair value of the shares based on a hotel valuation and awarded limited damages for oppression given that the dissent remedy already compensated the shareholders.