S. Pieters

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent their neighbours, the defendants, from parking their vehicles on the city boulevard in a manner that allegedly narrowed the access to the plaintiffs' shared driveway.

The plaintiffs argued this constituted a nuisance and infringed their property rights, seeking to apply a modified injunction test requiring only a strong prima facie case.

The court rejected the modified test, finding no substantial interference with property rights.

Applying the traditional RJR McDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried but concluded the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed, though the defendants were ordered to remove a parking curb from the boulevard.

The Crown sought a discretionary publication ban under section 517 of the Criminal Code during a bail hearing.

The accused opposed the request.

The court denied the application, finding that the Crown's concerns regarding the tainting of prospective jurors and witnesses were speculative and not grounded in the evidence.

The court noted that the trial was likely at least a year away and public knowledge of such matters is fleeting.

The Black Action Defence Committee applied for leave to intervene in a subpoena motion and procedendo application related to an ongoing criminal trial.

The accused, charged with human trafficking, alleged racial profiling and subpoenaed a police officer to testify.

The officer applied to quash the subpoena.

The proposed intervenor sought to make submissions on racial profiling.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that interventions in criminal proceedings are rare and the proposed intervenor would not offer a contribution beyond what the accused could already provide.