Alex Pettingill

This class action concerned historical sexual abuse perpetrated by Ralph Rowe, an Anglican priest and Scout leader, against Indigenous boys in remote communities.

The court approved a $13.25 million settlement, which included a unique trauma-informed claims process with two tracks (simplified Schedule A up to $140,000, and more rigorous Schedule B up to $350,000).

The settlement also provided for apologies from the Anglican Church of Canada and Scouts Canada, and funding for counselling.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members, emphasizing the benefits of timely resolution and the innovative, claimant-centric claims protocol.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiffs' defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the moving parties (defendants) sought full indemnity costs totalling over $1.1 million.

The court awarded full indemnity costs as requested, subject to a reduction for the costs of non-active counsel, clerks, or students.

The court also apportioned liability, finding one plaintiff jointly and severally liable only for costs related to the OMA dispute, while the other plaintiff was solely liable for costs related to the COVID-19 dispute.

The plaintiffs, two physicians, brought a $12 million defamation action against over 20 defendants, including other physicians, journalists, and media organizations.

The claims arose from two main disputes: an internal Ontario Medical Association (OMA) dispute and public criticism of the plaintiffs' controversial tweets regarding COVID-19, in which they opposed vaccines and lockdowns and promoted hydroxychloroquine.

The defendants brought anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that the defendants' expressions related to matters of public interest and that the plaintiffs failed to show their claims had substantial merit or that the defendants lacked valid defences, such as fair comment and qualified privilege.

The court also found that the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions far outweighed any harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The action was dismissed against all defendants.

This document sets out a procedural timetable for an anti-SLAPP motion brought by the defendants.

It establishes deadlines for the defendants' motion records, the plaintiffs' responding record, completion of examinations, and the submission of factums and replies, culminating in a hearing scheduled for September 24-25, 2019.

The appellant university appealed an interlocutory order dismissing its motion to strike the respondent student's claim for breach of contract.

The student alleged the university breached a contract by failing to return graded assignments with comments and explain a grade received in 2006-2007.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the claim lacked necessary particulars to establish the university went beyond its academic discretion.

Furthermore, the court held it was plain and obvious the claim was statute-barred, as the alleged breach occurred well over two years before the claim was commenced in 2015, and repeated internal complaints did not extend the limitation period.