Albert Brunet

The defendants, a national broadcaster and its employees, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiff, a student travel company, alleged that the defendants' reporting on the death of a student during a trip was defamatory.

The court found that the expression related to a matter of public interest and that the plaintiff failed to show there was no valid defence, specifically the defence of fair comment.

The court also found the balance of harms favoured protecting the expression, and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff initiated an action for defamation and malicious confinement against his sister, the defendant.

He brought a motion for document production from various police and security organizations.

The defendant, noted in default, sought to set aside the default and file a statement of defense, and also requested the court to consider the action vexatious under Rule 2.1.01.

The court struck the plaintiff's statement of claim as frivolous and vexatious, granting leave to amend it within 30 days, failing which the action would be permanently stayed.

The defendant was granted leave to file a statement of defense after the amended claim.

The plaintiff's motion for document production was not entertained until pleadings are closed.

The court declined to apply Rule 2.1.01 at this stage.

No costs were awarded.