Ryan John Atkinson

The appellant appealed an order of the Master that refused to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his action for delay.

The appellant also brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence on the appeal, detailing severe medical and financial challenges that prevented him from advancing the litigation or retaining counsel earlier.

The Divisional Court granted leave to admit the fresh evidence, finding it credible, relevant, and excusably delayed due to the appellant's circumstances.

Based on the fresh evidence, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the dismissal order, concluding that the appellant's interest in pursuing his substantial claims outweighed the respondent's interest in having the claims dismissed, especially given the lack of actual prejudice to the respondent.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from allegedly passing off their gym business as affiliated with the plaintiffs' boxing and fitness business.

They also sought declarations regarding an alleged website sabotage, orders compelling third‑party production relating to a domain name, and further document production.

Applying the three‑part test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR‑MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), the court found there was a serious issue to be tried but concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The court held that the plaintiffs’ evidentiary record relied heavily on hearsay from a marketing consultant rather than affidavits from individuals with direct knowledge.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, including the requests for declaratory and production relief.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration alleging that the respondent municipality violated the subcontracting clause of the provincial agreement by contracting electrical work to a non-union contractor.

The respondent argued it was acting as an owner, not an employer in the construction industry, and that it did not 'sublet' the work.

The Board found that the respondent was an employer in the construction industry and bound by the provincial agreement.

However, the Board dismissed the grievance, concluding that the respondent did not 'sublet' the work within the meaning of the agreement because it was not under a prior contractual obligation to perform the work.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 27 sought to intervene in the proceedings, arguing it had a long-standing bargaining relationship with the respondent and could offer insight into the respondent's construction activities.

The Board denied standing, finding that Local 27 was a stranger to the provincial agreement being grieved and had no legal right to participate.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to grant standing, noting that doing so based on the precedential value of the decision would needlessly complicate proceedings.