3 total
Default judgment set aside because plaintiff's counsel unreasonably proceeded without notice while defendants actively defended.
The plaintiff sued for a remedy under the Partnerships Act after allegedly being ejected from the partnership.
While the defendants were actively defending the case and moving to stay the action for arbitration, the plaintiff's counsel noted them in default and obtained default judgment without notice.
The motion judge refused to set aside the default judgment.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the default judgment, finding that the motion judge erred in principle by failing to consider the defendants' active defense and that the plaintiff's counsel acted unreasonably and contrary to principles of civility by proceeding without notice.
Evidence of third‑party republication excluded where exception to republication rule not pleaded.
In a defamation trial concerning an allegedly defamatory newspaper article also posted online, the plaintiff sought to introduce evidence of republication on third‑party websites based on Internet search results.
The court considered the rule that each republication of a libel is a separate publication and that the original publisher is not liable for subsequent republications unless an exception is pleaded, such as where repetition is the natural and probable consequence of the original publication.
The court reviewed authorities confirming that pleadings in defamation actions must specifically allege such exceptions.
Because the statement of claim did not plead the republication exception and no amendment had been sought despite notice from the defendants, the court held the plaintiff could not introduce evidence of republication by other Internet sites.
The evidentiary request was therefore refused.
Nightclub ordered to limit noise levels pending interlocutory injunction hearing.
The landlord sought an interim injunction against a tenant operating a restaurant and nightclub alleged to be producing excessive noise that interfered with other commercial tenants in the building.
Evidence showed that noise levels regularly exceeded the maximum permitted level established in a pre-opening Noise Plan and municipal by-law enforcement had issued citations.
Applying the test for interlocutory injunctions from R.J.R. MacDonald v. Canada (A.G.), the court found a serious issue to be tried, a risk of irreparable harm to the landlord through loss of current and prospective tenants, and that the balance of convenience favoured interim relief.
The court ordered the tenant to limit sound output to 91 dBA and to facilitate installation of a noise monitoring system pending the full injunction hearing.
