Kevin LaRoche

The defendants successfully defeated the plaintiff's motion for an injunction regarding the processing and delivery of radioactive Cobalt-60.

The defendants sought costs of $69,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff argued for $25,000 or deferral to arbitration.

The court considered the complexity of the technical and legal issues, the high value of the goods involved, and the urgency of the motion.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants at $45,000 for fees and $6,000 for disbursements on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction preventing the defendants from terminating a cobalt irradiation services agreement and requiring continued supply of irradiated Cobalt‑60 pending arbitration.

The defendants terminated the agreement after the plaintiff failed to pay approximately $4 million in overdue invoices despite a contractual requirement that invoices be paid within 30 days.

Applying the RJR‑MacDonald test, the court held that although a limited serious issue existed regarding whether providing only 30 days’ notice to cure default complied with the duty of good faith, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and the balance of convenience strongly favoured the defendants.

The court found that cancer treatment supply would not be disrupted because the product could be sourced elsewhere and existing supplies remained usable.

The motion for an injunction was denied.

The City of Kingston moved for leave to intervene in an appeal between the City of Sudbury and Union Gas Limited regarding the interpretation of a franchise agreement and the jurisdiction of the Ontario Energy Board under s. 10 of the Municipal Franchises Act.

Kingston argued there was a common question of law with its own pending appeal involving Union Gas.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the factual and legal contexts of the two proceedings were significantly different and that the disadvantages of permitting the intervention outweighed the advantages.

The appellants were charged with conspiracy to defraud the government.

The Crown's case relied on wiretap evidence obtained from listening devices installed in the appellants' motor vehicles.

The trial judge excluded the evidence, finding that the motor vehicles should have been specifically described in the judicial authorizations since they were known targets.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision, holding that the trial judge's ruling was an impermissible collateral attack on the authorization.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, confirming that a motor vehicle is a 'place' under the Criminal Code and that the general description in the authorization was sufficient.

The Court also agreed that challenging the lack of specific description constituted a collateral attack.