Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00674392-0000 DATE: 20231012 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Knox Presbyterian Church, Plaintiffs – AND – Peikang Dai, Defendant

BEFORE: Justice E.M. Morgan

COUNSEL: Jessica Roher and Janet Song, for the Plaintiff Peikang Dai, on his own behalf

HEARD: October 12, 2023

Case Conference

[1] The Defendant is a Christian minister who has had a falling out with the Plaintiff church. He and the congregants who follow him have been engaged in singing, noise-making, and other generally disruptive activities outside the property of the Plaintiff during times of worship.

[2] On August 18, 2023, I issued an Order scheduling a summary judgment motion for October 4, 2024 and granting an interim injunction prohibiting the Defendant, from, among other things, “attending at” the Plaintiff’s property and “interfering with KPC’s worship services in any way” until the disposition of the summary judgment motion. At that hearing, I indicated that I was not inclined to impose a “metes and bounds” distance, but I instructed the Defendant to act reasonably, move a distance, and not interfere with the Plaintiff’s activities and its congregants’ worship.

[3] I am now advised that on Sunday, August 27, 2023, the Defendant and his followers resumed gathering on the sidewalk and grass directly in front of the Plaintiff’s Property, in violation of s. 2(b) of my Order, which prevents Mr. Dai from “attending at… KPC’s Property”. This is apparently the location from which the Defendant has, for years, gathered to hold signs, play loud music, and shout at the Plaintiff’s staff and congregants, etc. The Plaintiff’s staff called the police but, it would seem, the officers who attended at the property said that the Order was too vague to enforce.

[4] Counsel for the Plaintiff advises in her case conference brief that on every Sunday since September 3, 2023, the Defendant and his followers have continued to gather on the sidewalk directly in front of the Plaintiff’s Property, place large banners along the property line and make noise directly adjacent to where KPC holds its activities. The Plaintiff’s congregants find this very disruptive.

[5] The Defendant has presented a large brief for today’s case conference. Much of it addresses the merits of the action rather than the interim injunction. However, there are some pages of photographs in the Defendant’s brief that help me picture what is transpiring each Sunday. There are up to about two dozen people standing or seated on chairs on the sidewalk outside the Plaintiff church. Sometimes the police are pictured as well.

[6] In explaining this to me at today’s case conference, the Defendant compares these gatherings to the frequent gatherings of protesters outside of the U.S. consulate on University Avenue, and states that he and his congregants want to have the same freedom as those or any other protesters. He goes on to explain that instead of shouting slogans or words of protest, his people are chanting and singing hymns.

[7] I respect that the Defendant and his group want to exercise their freedom of speech and freedom of worship. He has made the point forcefully that his group are immigrants from China and that these rights were denied to them by the Chinese government. They expect to have these rights protected in Canada.

[8] At the same time, the Plaintiff’s congregants have their rights. They are not a state institution or the representative of a sovereign nation; they are Canadians with the freedom to worship in their church without enduring disruptive political-style protests.

[9] The point of granting an interim Order was to maintain a situation in which both groups can freely conduct their respective worship and expressive activities without one interfering with the other. For that reason, I ordered that the Defendant’s group keep a reasonable distance from the Plaintiff during the Plaintiff’s worship hours. I did not prohibit the Defendant from engaging in any singing or other speech, except to say that, again during the Plaintiff’s worship hours, the Defendant’s group cannot use electronic amplification to increase the volume of their singing and chanting right outside the Plaintiff church.

[10] Under Rule 50.13(6)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, the court has the power at a case conference to “make an order for interlocutory relief”. I made such an Order at the last case conference, but that has proven difficult to enforce. Plaintiff’s counsel now seeks a more specific Order.

[11] Plaintiff’s counsel submits that until the disposition of the summary judgment motion, the Defendant is to be restricted from attending within 50-metres of its property during the specific dates and times that the Plaintiff holds its worship services. Defendant responds, accurately, that 50 metres is more than necessary since the streets abutting the church are not that wide.

[12] The Plaintiff church is located on the southwest corner of Spadina Ave. and Harbord St. It seems to me that as long as the Defendant and his group are across the street from the church rather than on the sidewalk abutting the church as shown in the Defendant’s photographs, the distance will be sufficient.

[13] My Order of August 18, 2023 will be replaced by a new Order that reiterates the terms of the August 18th order except as amended and supplemented by the following terms.

During the dates and times that the Plaintiff holds its worship services, as listed below, the Defendant shall remain at a reasonable distance from the Plaintiff church, and in any case shall not to be closer to the Plaintiff church than the sidewalk on the east side of Spadina Ave. or the north side of Harbord Street.

(a) Sundays from 10:00 am to 1:30 pm and 3:30 pm to 7:00 pm; (b) Ash Wednesday from 6:00 pm to 9:30 pm; (c) Good Friday from 10:00 am to 1:30 pm; (d) Christmas Eve from 6:00 pm to 9:30 pm; (e) Christmas Day from 10:00 am to 1:30 pm; (f) Maundy Thursday from 6:00 pm to 9:30 pm; and (g) during any other worship or prayer services as posted on the Plaintiff’s online calendar of events found at: (https://www.knoxtoronto.org/events).

[14] These terms should allow the Plaintiff’s congregants to worship in peace without being overly restrictive on the Defendant and his congregants.

[15] There will be an Order to go as submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel and amended by me.

Date: October 12, 2023 Morgan J.