Ahmed Mohamed

The plaintiffs, a law firm and its lawyers, brought a summary judgment motion for defamation against a former client, the defendant, for negative online statements posted on Google Reviews.

The defendant's review alleged the plaintiffs were "incompetent," "untrustworthy," "highly negligent," "shady," "pathetic," "a joke," and "awful lawyer." The court found these statements defamatory, satisfying the three-part test from Grant v. Torstar.

The defendant failed to advance any valid defence, including an anti-SLAPP motion, due to procedural non-compliance.

The court assessed general damages, considering factors such as the plaintiffs' professional standing, the seriousness and public nature of the statements, and the defendant's initial refusal to retract or apologize.

Despite the defendant's financial situation, the court awarded the plaintiffs $20,000 in general damages and $9,500 in costs, emphasizing that online comments are not immune from legal repercussions.

The plaintiff in a slip and fall action brought a motion seeking answers to undertakings, refusals, and questions taken under advisement.

The parties resolved most issues, but the court upheld the defendant's refusal to produce accident response training modules, finding them irrelevant to liability or damages.

The court also ruled that the plaintiff improperly included privileged mediation brief excerpts in her motion record, ordering their removal and a sealing order.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis, reduced due to the improper inclusion of privileged materials.