Adriana Di Biase

The appellant property developer sued the respondent municipal councillor for defamation after she made a police complaint about him following an altercation.

The motion judge dismissed the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the action lacked substantial merit as the mere making of a police complaint that is closed without charges does not constitute defamation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The parties requested on consent to amend the hearing date and procedural timelines for an expropriation compensation claim.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request, rescheduling the seven-day hearing to commence on November 2, 2026, and issued an updated Procedural Order to govern the pre-hearing steps.

This was an endorsement on costs following a motion to strike brought by the moving parties under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although success on the underlying motion was divided, the court found that the respondent's late-in-the-day amendments and late service of materials prejudiced the moving parties and caused them to incur additional costs.

The court exercised its discretion to award costs on a partial indemnity scale to communicate that court processes and deadlines must be taken seriously.

Ultimately, the court ordered the respondent to pay $14,000.00 plus HST and disbursements to each of the two groups of moving parties.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order on consent regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the widening and re-routing of Major Mackenzie Drive.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued the Procedural Order, scheduling a seven-day video hearing to commence on November 3, 2025, and setting out the timetable for pre-hearing steps including discovery, mediation, and the exchange of expert reports.

The court considered a motion by several defendants to strike out claims in a civil action involving allegations of mortgage fraud, conspiracy, and related causes of action.

The moving defendants sought to strike the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and as being frivolous and vexatious.

The court granted the motion in part, striking claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence against the moving defendants without leave to amend, but allowed the claim against Mr. Geraci personally to be amended.

The court also addressed the admissibility of late-served motion materials and the requirements for amending pleadings in the face of a motion to strike.

This endorsement addresses a case conference requested by Sergio Grillone, an undischarged bankrupt, seeking directions regarding his proposed appeal from a scheduling endorsement and related matters in ongoing bankruptcy proceedings.

The court finds that Mr. Grillone has no right of appeal from the scheduling endorsement, as no order has been made from which an appeal lies, and dismisses his proposed motion as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under rule 2.1.01.

The decision details the procedural history, the positions of the parties, and the court’s reasoning for dismissing the motion.

The decision addresses a motion by the plaintiff to amend her statement of claim in a real estate dispute.

The plaintiff sought to add claims related to a "Development Pause" and "Walk Away Offers" in a failed home purchase.

The court found the Development Pause amendments were statute-barred and dismissed them, but allowed amendments regarding the Walk Away Offers, as they were timely and not prima facie unmeritorious.

The court also ordered further document disclosure and permitted further discovery, deferring a decision on certain refusals.

The court determined the scale and quantum of costs following previous motions.

Primont Homes (Vaughan) Inc. sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing delay and unproven fraud allegations by the defendants, Maplequest (Vaughan) Developments Inc. and 2373480 Ontario Inc. The defendants argued for reduced partial indemnity costs due to mixed success and over-lawyering by Primont.

The court found partial indemnity was appropriate, rejecting substantial indemnity as the fraud allegations were not adjudicated on their merits.

The court also reduced Primont's requested quantum due to its unsuccessful abuse of process argument and duplicative work by its multiple timekeepers, ultimately awarding $140,000.00 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, Primont Homes (Vaughan) Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants, Maplequest (Vaughan) Developments Inc. and 2373480 Ontario Inc., from dealing with certain land lots, asserting a contractual right to acquire them.

The defendants moved to dissolve an existing interim injunction, arguing the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate undertaking as to damages and made material non-disclosures.

The court dismissed the defendants' motions to dissolve the interim injunction, finding them precluded by Rule 2.02 due to significant delay.

The court then granted the plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory injunction, determining there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the enforceability of the agreement and entitlement to specific performance, that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm due to the primary defendant's inability to satisfy a damages award, and that the balance of convenience favored maintaining the injunction.

The court also found the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages sufficient given the defendants' failure to quantify their potential damages from delay.

The claimants sought compensation from the respondent municipality for the expropriation of their land for a road widening project.

At a status hearing, the parties advised the tribunal that settlement discussions were ongoing and requested an adjournment.

The tribunal directed the parties to return for a Case Management Conference on October 27, 2023, and to submit a draft procedural order if the matter was not settled.

The appellant, a Markham city councillor, appealed the dismissal of her anti-SLAPP motion (pursuant to s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act) against an action brought by a developer.

The developer's action alleged defamation and other torts arising from the councillor's opposition to a development and her report to the police regarding an incident with the developer.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by adopting an overly narrow interpretation of "expression relating to a matter of public interest" and by conflating the stages of the s. 137.1 test.

The Court clarified that reporting concerns to the police and a city councillor's actions related to their public duties are matters of public interest, warranting a broad interpretation at the initial stage of the anti-SLAPP analysis.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to a different judge to consider the second stage of the s. 137.1 test.

In two related actions arising from a construction dispute, the Concord Parties moved to stay the Varone Parties' breach of trust claims under the Construction Lien Act upon payment into court of the admitted claim amount.

The Varone Parties brought a cross-motion to withhold disclosure and production of certain documents until a threshold issue regarding the nature of the services agreement was determined.

The court granted the stay, finding that the trust claims would be moot once fully secured by the payment into court, and that a stay would result in material efficiencies without causing injustice.

The court dismissed the discovery motion, concluding that the threshold issue was not clearly severable from the other claims, including fraud and conspiracy, and that the Varone Parties would not suffer serious prejudice from full disclosure.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to refusals arising from cross-examinations on affidavits filed by the defendant in support of her pending anti-SLAPP motion.

The underlying action involves claims of defamation and misfeasance in public office against a municipal councillor.

The court applied the test for relevance on a motion, balancing the scope of the anti-SLAPP motion with the principle of proportionality.

The court ordered the defendant to answer certain narrowed questions regarding her communications with third parties and the police, but dismissed overbroad requests and upheld solicitor-client privilege regarding a non-party lawyer's communications.

The plaintiff brought a motion to remove the defendants' law firm from the record due to a conflict of interest.

The law firm had previously represented the plaintiff in labour and employment matters, during which it received confidential information relevant to the current litigation involving alleged employee poaching by the defendants.

The court found that the law firm received relevant confidential information, the matters were sufficiently related, and the confidentiality screens implemented were inadequate.

The motion to remove the law firm was granted to preserve public confidence in the administration of justice.

The plaintiffs sought costs thrown away after the trial was adjourned due to the defendant's late filing of an expert report and failure to comply with court orders.

The court found that the defendant's dilatory conduct necessitated several motions and case conferences, ultimately delaying the trial.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs on a substantial indemnity scale, fixed at $11,983.48, payable within 21 days.

The plaintiffs, having succeeded in a 19-day trial and obtained judgment for $614,624 plus $30,000 in punitive damages, sought costs on a partial and substantial indemnity basis totaling $531,272.25.

The defendants argued the costs were excessive, particularly for motions resolved by consent and for alleged over-preparation.

The court, applying principles of reasonableness and the objectives of modern costs rules, reduced the partial indemnity costs for consent motions and the substantial indemnity costs for trial preparation, finding over-preparation.

The court awarded total costs of $353,109.53, including fees and disbursements.

The plaintiffs, V.P.M. Marketing and Media Consulting Inc. and Patricia Mitchell, sued the defendants, Stephen Jenne, Barbara Jenne, and BAMS Marketing Inc., for breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and interference with economic relations, seeking damages and punitive damages.

The defendants counterclaimed for unpaid commissions.

The court found Stephen Jenne to be a dependent contractor who owed and breached fiduciary duties and the duty of good faith to VPM by secretly orchestrating the transfer of VPM's clients to his own company, BAMS Marketing Inc., after the death of VPM's founder.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $614,624 in compensatory damages for lost profits and $30,000 in punitive damages.

The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed due to lack of proof, the application of the Limitations Act, and laches/acquiescence.

Following a motion and cross-motion that resulted in mixed success for both parties, the court invited written costs submissions.

The moving party sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $11,000, while the responding party sought approximately $8,800 or alternatively no order as to costs.

The court observed that the motion prompted the parties to moderate their positions and engage in compromise.

Taking into account the mixed success and proportionality considerations, the court exercised its discretion to fix a lump sum costs award payable to the moving party.

The plaintiff brought a productions motion in a contractual dispute concerning a 2007 central financing agreement.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant breached the agreement due to pressure from GM dealers and sought production of documents relating to a proposed Consillium financing structure, GM dealer meeting records, internal credit policies, and redacted communications.

The court found several categories of documents relevant to the pleaded theory and ordered production of documents concerning the creation of Consillium and internal policy materials, including menus of credit policy titles.

The defendant was also required to request relevant records from a dealers’ association and provide sufficient descriptions for documents claimed as privileged.

The motion and cross‑motion resulted in mixed success, with further costs submissions invited.