Sima Atri

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.

This ruling addresses the issue of costs following a decision granting a permanent injunction to Foxgate Developments Inc. and confirming an interlocutory injunction for The Corporation of Haldimand County.

The successful parties, Foxgate and Haldimand, sought costs from the defendant, Skyler Williams.

Williams argued that the litigation was in the public interest, warranting an exemption from costs, or that costs should be deferred or referred to an assessment officer.

The court dismissed Williams' arguments, finding that the case did not meet the high threshold for public interest litigation.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to Foxgate ($60,000) and Haldimand ($13,000), to be paid forthwith by Skyler Williams, determining that his conduct did not warrant solicitor-client or full indemnity costs.

The plaintiff developer sought a permanent injunction to remove protesters, including the named defendant Skyler Williams, from its property where it was constructing a residential subdivision.

The defendant argued that the common law test for injunctions was unconstitutional and disproportionately impacted Indigenous persons, and that the Crown had a duty to consult.

The court found that the defendant was not an authorized representative asserting collective s. 35 rights, and that the common law test for injunctions adequately balances Charter values.

Finding that the plaintiff held legal title and that damages would be inadequate for the ongoing trespass, the court granted the permanent injunction.