Adrien P. Cameron

This is an appeal from an order dismissing an action, primarily sounding in defamation, under Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

The motion judge had dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff (appellant) had not discharged his burden under s. 137.1(4).

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in his consideration of the respondents' defences to the defamation claims and in his weighing of the public interest in the expressions against the plaintiff's interest in proceeding.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the plaintiff had established grounds to believe the action had substantial merit and the respondents had no valid defence, and that the public interest in permitting the action to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the impugned expressions.

The appeal was allowed, and the action was permitted to proceed in its entirety.

This decision addresses a motion and application for approval of a global settlement of tort and statutory accident benefit claims for a person under disability, Donald Orr, pursuant to Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The judge critically reviews a prior endorsement from another judge, which mandated oral hearings for Rule 7.08(3) applications, citing *Leonard v. Saint-Vincent Hospital*.

Justice Grace respectfully disagrees with this interpretation, arguing it is overly technical, impractical, and inconsistent with Rule 1.04(1), especially for unopposed matters with voluminous documentation.

The judge emphasizes that written hearings promote judicial economy and allow for more thorough consideration.

The court ultimately approves the settlements, finding them fair and reasonable, including the proposed legal fees and disbursements.

The applicant sought judicial approval for negotiated settlements in a tort action and an accident benefits claim for a person under disability.

The motion combined both requests and was brought in writing.

The court found the motion procedurally deficient because, while a motion for tort settlement approval can be heard in writing on consent, an application for accident benefits settlement approval for a person under disability (when no formal proceeding has commenced) requires an oral hearing under Rules 7.08(3) and 38.

The court declined to address the substantive relief and dismissed the motion, advising the parties to separate the requests or seek formal relief from the oral hearing requirement for the application.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce restrictive covenants against a former sales consultant who allegedly used confidential information to start a competing business.

An interim injunction was already in place on consent.

The court dismissed the application for an expanded interlocutory injunction, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case for relief beyond the existing interim terms, which already enforced the substance of the restrictive covenants.