Niiti Simmonds

The University of Toronto brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to dismantle a protest encampment set up by students and others on Front Campus.

The protesters argued the encampment was a protected exercise of their rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly.

The court granted the injunction, finding that the University established a strong prima facie case of trespass and ejectment.

The court held that the protesters' appropriation of University property to the exclusion of others constituted irreparable harm.

The balance of convenience favoured the University, as the injunction only prohibited camping and erecting structures, while allowing the protesters to continue demonstrating elsewhere on campus.

In an alternative analysis, the court found that the Charter does not apply to the University's management of its property, and even if it did, the trespass notice was a justified limit under section 1.

The plaintiff purchased a frozen fish business from the defendants, which included a non-competition clause.

The plaintiff subsequently hired one of the defendants as a general manager, but later terminated him for alleged financial improprieties.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction, alleging the defendants were competing in the white fish market in breach of the non-competition clause.

The court found the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case of breach, that irreparable harm would result without an injunction, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was granted.

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action alleging he had a guaranteed five‑year fixed‑term employment contract and was dismissed after only eight months.

The employer denied any fixed‑term agreement and argued the employee resigned.

The court found that the parties formed an oral employment contract confirmed by email that did not include a five‑year guarantee, and that later documents referencing such a term were created primarily to assist the employee in obtaining mortgage financing and were unsupported by fresh consideration.

The court accepted the employee’s account that he had been dismissed during a heated confrontation rather than having resigned.

Damages were therefore limited to reasonable notice rather than the balance of a fixed term, and the court awarded two months’ notice damages.