In Enbridge Pipelines Inc. v. Jane Doe, the Applicant had an easement through a property for its gas pipeline. The protesters (according to their social media postings) opposed further construction on the pipeline, and occupied and refused to leave the property. The Applicant brought an ex parte (without notice) application for an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the protesters from occupying a work site on the property. The Applicant argued i) that the work on the pipeline was an immediate safety concern, ii) that any delay caused by the protesters would have serious impact on its economic concerns (the supply of oil to its customers), and iii) that the Applicant’s property rights – the easement – were in a “privileged position”, and that a trespass to property rights is virtually always remedied by an injunction. The Judge found with respect to i) that there was not an immediate safety concern, but with respect to ii) … Read More
Court Grants Summary Judgment in Employment Dispute
In Gregory Smith v. Diversity Technologies Corporation, the Plaintiff employee was terminated by the Defendant company for cause. The Defendant stated that the Plaintiff had made a sale to a customer despite being specifically instructed not to do so, and that the order disrupted the Defendant’s production process. The Plaintiff denied that he had been instructed not to sell to the customer. The Defendant argued that a Trial was necessary to resolve the credibility issues. The Judge disagreed, and, following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hyrniak v. Mauldin, stated that there was sufficient documentary evidence to allow the court to carry out a fair and just adjudication of the dispute. The Judge stated that she would consider the Defendant’s case “at its highest and best”, and set aside the credibility issues. She stated that even if the Plaintiff had disregarded the Defendant’s instructions not to sell to the customer, it was … Read More
Scooter Wars – Defamation Strikes Back
In Motoretta v. Twist & Go Power Sports, the Plaintiff and Defendant are two rival GTA scooter stores, engaged in what the Judge called the “Toronto Scooter Wars”. The Defendant’s Vespa dealership was terminated by the Canadian Vespa distributor. The Plaintiff remained an authorized Vespa dealer. The Plaintiff was suspicious that the Defendant had “bad-mouthed” it to customers on an ongoing basis. In response, the Plaintiff hired private investigators to pose as customers at the Defendant’s store. The private investigators recorded their conversations with the Defendant, which the Plaintiff alleged were defamatory. The Plaintiff scooter store brought an action for damages for defamation, and for a permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendant from further defaming the Plaintiff. The action was determined by summary judgment. The Judge found that the Defendant’s statements to the private investigators had defamed the Plaintiff. The Defendant argued that the statements did not meet the legal test of defamation because … Read More
Court of Appeal Rules Insurance Not Voided by Expired License
In Kozel v. The Personal Insurance Company, an Ontario driver had an automobile insurance policy with the appellant insurance company. The driver severely injured a motorcyclist in an automobile accident in Florida. The injured motorcyclist sued the Ontario driver. At the time of the accident, the driver was driving with an expired license, in breach of a statutory condition of her insurance policy. The driver asked the Court to order the insurance company to defend her against the motorcyclist’s lawsuit under the liability coverage of her automobile insurance policy. The insurance company refused to defend the driver because she was in breach of the policy. The Court of Appeal considered whether the driver should be excused from her breach of the policy. The Court considered whether to grant “relief from forfeiture” under section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act (which states that “A court may grant relief against penalties and forfeitures, on such terms … Read More
Court of Appeal Defines Key Terms Relating to Injunctions
In 1711811 Ontario Ltd. (AdLine) v. Buckley Insurance Brokers Ltd. a dispute arose between the parties regarding access to a laneway, resulting in three Court endorsements referring to “interim”, “interlocutory”, “permanent”, and “mandatory” injunctive relief. The Court of Appeal took the opportunity to clarify these key terms relating to injunctions: Interim injunction: Pre-trial relief, which may be sought with or without notice to the other party. Argument in an interim injunction proceeding is usually brief. The injunction is typically for a short, defined period of time. Interlocutory injunction: Pre-trial relief, again restraining a party for a limited period of time, but often for longer than an interim injunction (such as until trial or other disposition of the action). Argument in an interlocutory injunction proceeding is typically lengthier than in an interim injunction proceeding, and involves both parties. The test for an interlocutory injunction is set out in in RJR-MacDonald, and recognizes that the Court does not have the ability … Read More
Court Declines to Grant Summary Judgment, But Orders “Summary Trial”
Kristensen v. Schisler is another decision on the heels of Hryniak v. Mauldin, the Supreme Court case promoting better access to justice through summary judgment. This case was for professional negligence and battery. The Plaintiff claimed against the Defendants, a dentist and an oral surgeon, for removing his tooth without consent. The Judge considered the new test set out by the Supreme Court in Hryniak v. Mauldin, stating that “The overarching question to be answered is ‘whether summary judgment will provide a fair and just adjudication’.” The Judge concluded that he could not grant summary judgment. He stated that more evidence was necessary to “do justice between the parties” because: 1) the case turned on credibility, the Plaintiff’s in particular; the Plaintiff denied consenting to the tooth removal, even though the Defendants’ records suggested otherwise. If the Plaintiff were to be found highly credible (presumably after in-court cross-examination), his evidence might “trump” … Read More
Court of Appeal Refuses to Exercise Long-Arm Jurisdiction
In West Van Inc. v. Daisley, the Motion Judge found that the claim did not have a “real and substantial connection” to Ontario to give the Ontario Courts jurisdiction. The Plaintiff, a Canadian company, was suing an American lawyer for work he had done for the Plaintiff company in the U.S. The Court of Appeal considered whether the Court should exercise jurisdiction under the “forum of necessity” exception; the Ontario Courts may assume jurisdiction over a case which it otherwise would not if there is no other forum where the Plaintiff can “reasonably” sue. The Plaintiff argued that it could not reasonably sue the American lawyer in North Carolina because it could not find a lawyer to represent it there. The Plaintiff had called lawyers in two of North Carolina’s largest cities, but none would agree to take the case. The Court of Appeal was not satisfied that the difficulty in … Read More