2 total
Anti-SLAPP motion dismissed as defamation claim regarding allegations of foreign state control had substantial merit.
The defendants brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to strike the plaintiff's defamation claim as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).
The plaintiff, Sikhs for Justice, sued the defendants over an article alleging the plaintiff's referendum campaign for an independent Sikh state was driven and controlled by Pakistan.
The court found that the plaintiff's claim had substantial merit and that there were grounds to believe the defendants' defences of responsible communication and fair comment might not succeed.
The court concluded that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.
The motion was dismissed.
Wrongful dismissal appeal dismissed; five-week notice period for six-month employee upheld.
The appellant appealed a summary judgment order that awarded her five weeks' pay in lieu of notice for wrongful dismissal and dismissed her other claims of improper conduct by the employer.
On appeal, she argued the notice period was insufficient, the motion judge ignored her amended employment agreement, and there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error of fact or error of law in the motion judge's application of the Bardal factors or dismissal of the other claims.
A motion to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed as the evidence could have been obtained prior to the summary judgment motion.
