4 total
Sealing order granted for anonymous non-party but denied for non-party whose identity was already public.
The defendant in a defamation action brought a motion for the production and preservation of documents from non-parties, as well as a sealing order and publication ban regarding the identities and medical information of two non-party insured individuals.
The court granted the unopposed production orders.
Applying the Sherman Estate test, the court granted the sealing order and publication ban for one insured whose identity remained anonymous, but dismissed the request for the other insured whose identity was already public and where the scope of the requested health information ban was too vague.
Defamation claim succeeded after historic abuse allegations were not proven.
The plaintiff sued family members for defamation arising from oral and written accusations that he had sexually abused two nieces as children, and the defendants counterclaimed in sexual battery and intentional infliction of mental suffering.
After a lengthy trial with expert evidence on trauma, memory, delayed reporting, recantation, and false memory, the court held that the abuse allegations were not proven on a balance of probabilities and dismissed the counterclaim.
The court found the impugned accusations plainly defamatory, rejected justification, and held that the broad dissemination of the allegations to extended family and others did not fall within qualified privilege.
The court further held that the statement warning that others might also be sexually abused was unsupported and malicious.
Judgment was granted to the plaintiff with $125,000 in general damages and costs.
Appeal of Ontario Energy Board compliance order and $234,000 penalty for unfair sales practices dismissed.
Summitt Energy Management Inc. appealed an Ontario Energy Board order imposing a $234,000 administrative penalty, a compliance order, and restitution to consumers for unfair door-to-door sales practices.
Summitt argued reasonable apprehension of bias, incorrect standard of proof, lack of jurisdiction for restitution, and procedural unfairness.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's independent legal counsel did not create bias, the proceedings were regulatory (requiring a civil standard of proof), and the Board had broad statutory authority to order restitution.
Motion to enforce interim settlement agreement dismissed as the agreement applied prospectively, not retroactively.
The defendant, Impark, brought a motion to enforce an interim settlement agreement regarding the remittance of parking lot revenues by the plaintiff, Precise.
The dispute centered on whether the settlement agreement's fee deduction arrangement applied retroactively to the months of September and October 2012.
The court applied principles of contractual interpretation, considering the factual matrix and the specific language used in the agreement.
The court concluded that the future-looking language and the reference to Precise altering its 'current practice' indicated the parties intended the arrangement to apply prospectively from November onwards.
The motion was dismissed.
