Alexi N. Wood

The plaintiff, former Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, brought defamation actions against the defendants over allegations of antisemitism.

The defendants brought anti-SLAPP motions to dismiss the actions.

Two organizations, Independent Jewish Voices Canada and the National Council of Canadian Muslims, brought motions to intervene in the anti-SLAPP motions to provide perspective on the meaning of antisemitism.

The court dismissed the motions to intervene, finding that anti-SLAPP motions are intended to be expeditious, preliminary screening mechanisms, and that adding interveners would unnecessarily expand the evidentiary record and scope of the private dispute.

The court also ordered that the defendants, as moving parties, would present their arguments first at the anti-SLAPP hearing.

Following a finding of professional misconduct for physically abusing a horse, failing to communicate clinical findings, and breaching client confidentiality on social media, the Discipline Committee determined the appropriate penalty and costs.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a six-month suspension, and remedial conditions including anger management, equine restraint training, and practice monitoring.

The Committee also ordered the Member to pay 30% of the College's costs, fixed at $103,698.38, payable in installments following the suspension.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 31, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the responding parties.

The applicants, claimants under a Hepatitis C class action settlement, sought leave to sue the settlement administrator, Crawford & Company (Canada) Inc., for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty.

They alleged mismanagement of the Past Economic Loss and Dependents Fund (PELD Fund) and misleading advice regarding compensation options, which resulted in them receiving only a pro-rata share of their approved compensation.

The court granted leave, applying the "reasonable possibility of success" test.

It found that the proposed claims, if proven, demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success for all three causes of action.

The court distinguished the case from prior decisions denying leave, emphasizing that the allegations pertained to the administrator's conduct in providing advice while aware of fund insolvency, rather than merely challenging compensation calculations.

Arguments regarding release and limitation periods were dismissed as premature at this stage.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion brought by the defendants to strike, stay, or dismiss a tort action, which was dismissed by the court.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the defendants requested partial indemnity or no costs, arguing for divided success.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $36,665.22, all-inclusive, finding no divided success and deeming the plaintiff's costs reasonable.

The plaintiff commenced a wrongful dismissal action against her former employer in 2019.

In 2022, she commenced a separate tort action against the employer and a co-worker, alleging intentional infliction of mental distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and the novel torts of harassment and stalking, based on the same factual footprint.

The defendants moved to strike the novel torts and to stay or dismiss the 2022 action as an abuse of process or duplicative proceeding.

The court declined to strike the novel torts, finding it was not plain and obvious they would fail.

The court also declined to stay the 2022 action, finding no abuse of process, but struck the 2022 statement of claim for pleading irregularities with leave to amend, and ordered the two actions consolidated.

The applicant, an orthopedic surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding OHIP's denial of certain billing claims.

The applicant argued the Board erred by admitting opinion evidence from an OHIP medical advisor who was not an independent expert.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably exercised its broad statutory discretion to admit the evidence.

The court noted the witness, while not a traditional independent expert or a 'participant expert' under the civil rules, possessed relevant expertise as an employee of a party and her evidence was largely factual and explanatory.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment that created a novel tort of 'family violence' and awarded the respondent wife $150,000 in damages for intimate partner violence during their marriage.

The Court of Appeal held that while tort claims can be brought in family law proceedings, the trial judge erred in creating a new tort because existing torts—battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress—adequately address the pattern of physical, emotional, and financial abuse.

The Court also declined to recognize a proposed tort of 'coercive control'.

The Court upheld the $100,000 award for compensatory and aggravated damages but set aside the $50,000 punitive damages award, finding the other damages sufficient to achieve condemnation.

The moving party sought a panel review of a prior order by Pardu J.A. that dismissed her motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing her appeal for delay and to extend time to perfect the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the review motion, finding no error in the motion judge's assessment of the moving party's delay or the lack of merit in the underlying appeal.

This endorsement clarifies a previous order dated October 15, 2021, due to disputes and uncertainty raised by the respondents regarding rental arrears, utilities, and obligations concerning a fence.

The court confirmed its original interpretation of the rental abatement period (November 2020 to February 2021), upheld the previously ordered amounts for utilities and BIA, and reaffirmed its decision on the fence, granting the respondents an extension to provide a modified design.

The appellant, Dr. Mistry, appealed an Associate Justice's order that granted a motion to add him and Dr. Karmali-Rawji as defendants in a medical malpractice action.

The core issue was whether the claim against Dr. Mistry for delayed diagnosis and failure to refer was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Master had found the claim was discovered in May 2017 when the plaintiff's counsel reviewed medical records, thus the limitation period had not expired.

Dr. Mistry argued the claim was discoverable earlier, by February 2015.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Master's decision.

It affirmed that the plaintiff, an unsophisticated litigant, and his counsel could not have drawn a plausible inference of liability against Dr. Mistry without the new information from the full medical records, which revealed the spinal lesion was diagnosable earlier.

The appellant, Elisa Romero Hategan, moved to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of her appeal and for an extension of time to perfect it.

The underlying appeal was from a summary judgment that dismissed Hategan's claims (wrongful appropriation of personality, civil conspiracy, injurious falsehood, negligence, unlawful interference with economic interests) and awarded damages for defamation against her, along with a permanent injunction.

The Court of Appeal considered the factors for extending time to perfect an appeal, including the length of delay, explanation for delay, prejudice to respondents, and merits of the appeal.

The court found the appellant's delay unreasonable and the appeal to have little or no merit, as her original claims lacked evidentiary support for false statements and the defamation counterclaim was well-founded.

The motion to set aside the dismissal and extend time was dismissed.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The ICRC had required the applicant to appear for a caution and submit a reflective essay following a complaint from a female patient regarding an inappropriate comment made during a pelvic examination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's conclusions regarding the adequacy of the ICRC's investigation and the reasonableness of its remedial disposition were transparent, intelligible, and justified.

The applicant landlord brought an application regarding a commercial tenancy after the respondent tenants unilaterally withheld rent for 10 months.

The tenants claimed they were entitled to an abatement of rent because a failed Fire Code inspection delayed their ability to open a daycare facility on the premises.

The court found that while the landlord was responsible for some delay in rectifying the Fire Code violations, the tenants' withholding of 10 months' rent was an unduly aggressive self-help remedy.

The court granted a 4-month rent abatement, ordered the tenants to pay the remaining arrears within 45 days, and declined to order forfeiture of the lease.

The court also ordered the parties to cooperate on revising the design of a fence the tenants had installed without approval.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found he committed professional misconduct by improperly billing OHIP and falsifying patient records, and revoked his certificate of registration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law in the Committee's liability decision.

The Court also upheld the penalty of revocation, concluding it was not clearly unfit given the intentional and dishonest nature of the misconduct and the appellant's lack of insight.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the February 12, 2021 decision of McEwen J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondents.

The plaintiff, a former member of a white supremacist group, sued the defendants, also former members or individuals involved in anti-hate work, alleging they appropriated her life story and committed various torts including injurious falsehood, civil conspiracy, and negligence.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims, and one defendant counterclaimed for defamation, invasion of privacy, and appropriation of personality.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims as frivolous and vexatious, finding no evidence to support any of the alleged torts.

The court granted the defendant's counterclaim, awarding $100,000 in general damages, $50,000 in aggravated damages, and $50,000 in punitive damages, along with a permanent injunction.

The defendants in a complex defamation action brought motions for the production of documents related to 'Project Maple Tree', an operation undertaken by foreign investigative agents (including Black Cube) retained by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs asserted solicitor-client and litigation privilege over the documents.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the motions despite the stay provision in s. 137.1(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court rejected the claims of solicitor-client privilege, finding the third-party investigators were not essential to the solicitor-client relationship.

The court also rejected the claims of litigation privilege for the vast majority of the documents, finding their dominant purpose was not legitimate litigation and that the 'Blank exception' applied because the agents engaged in improper conduct, including pretext stings on a former judge and opposing party employees.

The plaintiff, who was rendered paraplegic following spinal surgery, brought a motion to amend his statement of claim to add his former family doctor and chiropractor as defendants, and to add new allegations against the defendant surgeon.

The surgeon brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding the delay was not contumelious and caused no actual prejudice.

The court denied the plaintiff's request to add new allegations against the surgeon, ruling they were statute-barred new causes of action.

However, the court allowed the addition of the family doctor and chiropractor, finding the claims against them were not reasonably discoverable until the plaintiff's counsel obtained and reviewed the family doctor's medical chart.

The plaintiffs, owners of a shoe restoration business, brought a motion for an interim injunction to compel the defendant, a former employee, to remove social media posts alleging that the plaintiffs were racist and had terminated her for supporting the Black Lives Matter movement.

The court applied the stringent test for injunctive relief in defamation actions, which requires the moving party to show that the words are clearly defamatory and that any defences of justification or fair comment will inevitably fail.

The court found that, based on the evidence presented, it would not be perverse for a trier of fact to find that the defences of justification or fair comment had been made out.

The motion for an interim injunction was dismissed.