Aaron Rosenberg

The plaintiff sought damages for property damage caused by a water leak from a dishwasher manufactured by the defendants.

The plaintiff alleged that the dishwasher's solenoid valve was defective due to plastic degradation and that the defendants failed to warn consumers about the risk of failure during a freezing event.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the valve was defective, as expert evidence suggested a freezing event was the likely cause.

The court also held that the defendants had no duty to warn of the remote risk of a valve failure due to freezing.

This costs endorsement followed a defamation judgment where the plaintiff was awarded $85,000.

The plaintiff sought $37,589.77 in costs.

The defendants failed to submit their costs response on time, citing illness, but had previously indicated acceptance of a $35,000 offer to settle costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff the full amount claimed, emphasizing the defendants' failure to seek an extension and the plaintiff's thorough submissions.

The plaintiff, Shai DeLuca, an interior designer and public figure, sued the defendants, Foodbenders and its proprietor Kimberly Hawkins, for defamation.

The defendants had posted and reposted statements on Instagram, including calling DeLuca a "terrorist" and implying he aimed a sniper rifle at Palestinian children, and later calling him a "racist" and "killer." The court found the statements defamatory and rejected the defence of fair comment, primarily due to factual inaccuracies and the defendants' malice.

The court awarded $75,000 in general and aggravated damages and $10,000 in punitive damages, and granted a permanent injunction.

The appellant, a self-represented lawyer, appealed an Associate Justice's dismissal of his motion for security for costs.

The appellant argued the Associate Justice erred by not first determining if the prerequisite factors under Rule 56.01(1) were met before exercising discretion, and by excluding a late-filed reply affidavit.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The Associate Justice correctly applied a holistic approach to determine if a security for costs order was just, properly concluded the appellant failed to prove entitlement to costs as a self-represented litigant, and appropriately excluded the late affidavit due to prejudice.

The appellant, Guestlogix Inc., appealed a judgment that awarded the respondent, Marina Antchipalovskaia, twelve months' common law notice for wrongful dismissal.

The core issue was whether the motion judge erred in treating the respondent's employment as continuous from 2011 to 2019, despite a termination and re-hiring in 2016 during Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings, which included a court-ordered release of prior claims.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by not giving effect to the 2016 termination and the CCAA release.

However, the court also held that the respondent's prior five years of experience still provided a benefit to the appellant and should be considered in determining the notice period.

The Court of Appeal substituted the twelve-month notice period with a seven-month notice period, recognizing both the effect of the CCAA release and the value of the respondent's previous service.

The plaintiffs in a defamation action brought a motion for a sealing order and publication ban.

The action arose from social media posts made by the defendant, a family member, following a dispute over funeral attendance.

Applying the test from Sherman Estate, the court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence that court openness posed a serious risk to an important public interest or their biographical core.

The court declined to award costs to the successful defendant because her counsel had previously sent a letter threatening to use the open court principle to embarrass the plaintiffs if they did not abandon their claim.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing an anti-SLAPP motion.

The appellants (B'nai Brith Canada et al.) sought to dismiss a defamation action brought by the respondent (Canadian Union of Postal Workers - CUPW) under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The defamation action arose from press releases published by B'nai Brith alleging CUPW supported terrorism and was anti-Semitic due to its association with a Palestinian union.

The motion judge found CUPW had a substantial case for defamation and that the appellants' defences (justification, fair comment, responsible communication) had serious flaws, and that the public interest favoured allowing the action to proceed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no reviewable error in the application of the anti-SLAPP test, including the assessment of the appellants' defences and the public interest balancing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action initiated by the plaintiff union.

The defendants contended the action was an illegitimate attempt to suppress freedom of expression on a matter of public interest.

The court found that while the litigation had some elements of SLAPP, it was not the type of action the legislature intended to stop at a preliminary stage.

The defamation action appeared to have substantial merit, and the defendants' pleaded defences were not certain to succeed.

The court was not persuaded that the plaintiff's principal objective was to stifle criticism.

Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied.