Sahil Shoor

The plaintiffs, CRH Canada Group Inc. and intervenor Nelson Aggregates, sought an interlocutory injunction against the Ontario Aggregate Trucking Association, Ontario Dumptruck Association, and several individuals.

The defendants were blocking access to the plaintiffs' business facilities to compel an increase in haulage rates and impose a fuel surcharge.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a serious issue to be tried in nuisance and unlawful interference with private property rights, irreparable harm due to economic impact and difficulty in collecting damages, and that the balance of convenience strongly favored the plaintiffs.

The defendants did not appear or file materials.

The injunction was granted, prohibiting blockades and interference with access, while affirming the defendants' right to lawful, peaceful protest.

This is a costs endorsement following a nine-day trial where the plaintiff was awarded substantial damages ($54,365.25) and the defendants a small set-off ($4,500.00).

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, arguing the defendants' conduct prolonged the trial and that a Rule 49 offer was more favourable than the judgment.

The defendants argued for proportionality in simplified procedure cases and that the costs claimed were excessive.

The court, applying principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, found the plaintiff far more successful and that the defendants' actions contributed to the trial's length and complexity.

Despite the simplified procedure, the court emphasized that proportionality should not undercompensate a litigant for legitimately incurred costs, especially when the opposing party's conduct prolonged the proceedings or advanced unmeritorious defenses.

The court fixed costs at $45,000.00, all-inclusive, in favour of the plaintiff.

A commercial tenant vacated leased premises and removed most furnishings and assets.

The landlord sought partial summary judgment under section 50 of the Commercial Tenancies Act for twice the value of goods removed.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding the tenant and its principals liable.

The appellants appealed, arguing the motion judge failed to properly apply the two-step analytical framework established in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the motion judge addressed the first step of the Hryniak analysis, he failed to address the second step regarding how factual disputes should be determined.

The court found genuine factual issues existed between the parties regarding whether the landlord had consented to the removal of assets, and the motion judge improperly resolved these conflicts based on credibility findings without proper consideration of the appropriate mechanism for resolving disputed facts.

In a wrongful dismissal action with a counterclaim alleging conversion of drilling equipment, the plaintiff sought leave under Rule 36.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to examine two non‑party witnesses before trial in order to preserve their testimony.

The witnesses were elderly and resided outside the jurisdiction, and one had a history of medical issues.

The court considered the discretionary factors under Rule 36.01(3), including convenience, risk of unavailability, and the uncertain timing of trial.

Finding no prejudice to the defendants and recognizing the prudence of preserving evidence while memories were fresh, the court granted leave for the videotaped examinations before trial.