Marina E. Sampson

The Patient Ombudsman appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed its proposed investigation into long-term care homes, which the Divisional Court found was prohibited by s. 13.3(5) of the Excellent Care for All Act, 2010, due to existing proceedings on the matter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Divisional Court's application of the reasonableness standard and its broad interpretation of "in connection with" in s. 13.3(5).

The court found no error in the Divisional Court's conclusion that the Patient Ombudsman's investigation was unreasonably commenced given the extant proceedings and the clear overlap of subject matter.

The plaintiff, Canadian National Railway Company, brought an ex parte motion for an interim quia timet injunction to restrain unknown individuals from blockading its railway operations in Ontario.

The blockades were part of a political protest regarding the conflict in the Middle East.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the plaintiff established a serious issue to be tried regarding trespass, irreparable harm due to significant economic damage and disruption of rail traffic, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff as the protests were occurring on private property.

The interim injunction was granted.

This class action, initiated in 2017 following a 2015 train derailment, faced a motion by Canadian National Railway Company (CN) for dismissal due to delay under section 29.1(1) of the Class Proceeding Act, 1992.

CN argued that no certification motion was pending, nor was there a court-ordered timetable for advancement by the October 1, 2021, deadline.

The plaintiffs contended that the court had established a timetable through prior case management conference endorsements, which included steps like environmental assessments and subsequent case management conferences.

The court found that the ordered environmental assessment and subsequent case management conferences constituted "steps required to advance the proceeding" and thus a valid timetable under the Act.

Consequently, the motion to dismiss for delay was refused.

The Canadian National Railway Company sought a 30-day extension of a without-notice injunction previously granted to prevent protesters from trespassing on or blocking its Brampton Intermodal Hub facility.

The court had initially granted a 10-day injunction due to apprehended harm.

Despite a lack of actual trespass or blockade in the preceding week, new evidence indicated a significant, organized protest was imminent.

The court acknowledged the exceptional circumstances, including the global pandemic and societal upheaval, but emphasized the fundamental rights to expression and protest.

Applying Rule 40.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that an extension without notice could only be for an additional ten days and required exceptional circumstances.

Balancing the need to protect private rights with preserving freedom of expression, the court limited the injunction extension to ten days and mandated a further hearing on notice to the affected parties, stressing that injunctions should minimally impair rights.

Canadian National Railway Company (CN) sought an injunction to prevent unnamed protesters from trespassing on its lands and blockading its trains at its Brampton intermodal terminal.

Protesters had previously caused significant delays and safety risks while expressing outrage over police brutality.

The court granted the injunction, affirming that while freedom of expression is a Charter right, it does not extend to unlawful acts such as trespassing, endangering others, or disrupting legitimate business operations.

The court applied the three-part test for an interim injunction, finding a strong case for CN, irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoring the railway.

The plaintiff, Canadian National Railway Company, sought to continue an interim injunction against protestors blockading its main rail line and to compel OPP officers to identify the protestors for contempt proceedings.

The court validated service of the motion record, continued the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience favoring the plaintiff.

The court also granted leave to examine an OPP officer to identify the protestors, expressing concern over police inaction in enforcing the initial order.

This decision addresses costs following a partially successful summary judgment motion brought by the defendant.

The defendant sought full summary judgment, but the court dismissed only the negligence claims, allowing nuisance and strict liability claims to proceed to trial.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found the defendant's success limited and the plaintiff successfully defended the motion on other issues.

The court also rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff acted unreasonably in responding to a request to admit.

Exercising its discretion, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, finding the requested amount reasonable.

The defendant brought a Rule 21.01(1)(a) motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s action as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of duty after frozen poultry products stored at the defendant’s facility were discovered missing in 2006.

The plaintiff argued that it did not discover its claim until 2010 when an internal investigation report revealed security deficiencies and prior knowledge of thefts.

The court held that the pleaded facts showed the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the material facts supporting a claim in 2006–2007 when it demanded compensation from the defendant.

Applying the discoverability principles under s. 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002, the court concluded the two‑year limitation period had expired and dismissed the action.