Soumya Roop Sanyal

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from dealing with estate assets and sought orders directing third parties to release hospital records, telephone records, and the defendant's will.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to strike the Statement of Claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and for being frivolous and an abuse of process.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a recognizable duty of care owed by the defendant, who was acting as attorney for personal care pursuant to a valid power of attorney.

The court struck the claim without leave to amend and dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding it was motivated by personal turmoil and collateral purposes rather than a viable legal claim.

The court considered costs following a motion by the defendants to dismiss the plaintiffs’ action for delay and breaches of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the motion to dismiss was denied, the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants $4,000 in costs, citing the plaintiffs’ repeated non-compliance with court orders and litigation delay.

The decision discusses the principles governing costs, including the court’s discretion, the impact of blameworthy conduct, and the effect of settlement offers.

The applicant, Lakshmi Narayan Mandir, sought an interlocutory injunction without notice to prevent protests within 100 metres of its temple.

The temple was scheduled to host a consular camp for elderly Indian nationals to obtain Life Certificates, which are essential for their state pensions.

Previous similar events at other temples had been disrupted by violent clashes between pro-Khalistan Sikh nationalists and pro-India counter-protesters, leading to injuries and property damage.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald and American Cyanamid test for interlocutory injunctions, with the elevated standard for cases involving freedom of expression.

It found a serious issue, irreparable harm to pensioners and congregants if the event was disrupted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.

The court also determined there was a high probability of harm based on past incidents and threats.

The injunction was granted, establishing a 100-metre perimeter to protect participants and congregants while allowing protesters to express their views from a distance.

Jennings Lodge Inc. sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) from relocating residents from Jennings Lodge, a facility transitioning from a licensed home for special care to a Community Homes for Opportunity (CHO) program.

The dispute arose from CMHA's termination of a Transfer Payment Agreement (TPA) with Jennings Lodge.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a serious issue regarding the enforceability and unconscionability of the TPA's termination clause due to unequal bargaining power.

Irreparable harm was found for Jennings Lodge's business reputation and operation, and for the vulnerable residents who were not consulted and treated as "chattels." The balance of convenience favored Jennings Lodge, as it faced significant loss while CMHA asserted no harm.

The injunction was granted, restraining CMHA from relocating residents until the claim's resolution or January 22, 2025.