Amanda Pilieci

The plaintiff, a lawyer and board member of Villa Charities organizations, sued for defamation following publication of an article in Corriere Canadese criticizing the organizations' development proposal for a community centre site.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action under Ontario's anti-SLAPP provisions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the article addressed a matter of public interest, the plaintiff established substantial merit to the defamation claim and that the defendants had no valid defences.

The court found the statements were defamatory, referred to the plaintiff, and were published.

The defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege all failed.

The court also found the harm to the plaintiff's professional reputation and personal well-being was sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard a motion by 94 former employees (proposed interveners) to intervene as an added party in an appeal between 2505243 Ontario Limited and Princes Gates GP Inc. The employees sought to protect a $2.063 million fund set aside for their potential termination claims by the trial judge.

The motion was opposed by Princes Gates GP Inc., while 2505243 Ontario Limited took no position.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that although the proposed interveners had a direct financial interest, their submissions would largely duplicate those of 2505243 Ontario Limited and risked introducing a new, unlitigated issue (common employer) from a separate class proceeding.

The plaintiff, a food and beverage operator, sued the defendant hotel for unlawful and bad faith termination of their commercial leases and service agreements.

The hotel terminated the agreements during the COVID-19 pandemic, alleging unpaid rent and other breaches, while secretly negotiating with a replacement operator.

The court found the termination was unlawful and in bad faith, as the hotel wrongfully withheld deposits, owed the plaintiff money, and unreasonably refused to assist with a government rent subsidy application.

The court awarded the plaintiff reliance damages for its capital investments and employee termination costs, less a set-off for the hotel's proven counterclaim.

This decision addresses costs following a 17-day trial involving two consolidated actions: a construction lien action and a debt recovery action.

The court awarded costs to Kalogon Spar Ltd. and Dino Coliviras, fixing the amount at $190,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable from a standby letter of credit.

The court declined to apply Rule 49 cost consequences due to insufficient evidence from Kalogon regarding costs incurred at the time of settlement offers.

The court considered various factors, including the parties' conduct, the complexity of the proceedings, and the proportionality of the award, noting that both parties displayed inflexibility and Kalogon's principal failed to keep proper records, which significantly increased litigation costs.

The applicant sought an urgent interlocutory injunction or leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) to prevent the respondents from selling or encumbering a jointly owned commercial property.

The parties were in a joint venture that had deteriorated, leading to a mortgage default.

The respondents acquired the mortgage debt through a related company and intended to sell the property under power of sale.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the dispute was fundamentally about money and realizing on an investment, not a unique interest in land, and that damages would be an adequate remedy.

On appeal from a motion judge's decision to enforce a settlement agreement, the appellants challenged the motion judge's finding that a verbal settlement agreement had been reached between the respondent's counsel and the litigation administrator of the deceased defendant's estate on February 9, 2016.

The appellants argued that the motion judge erred in failing to apply Rule 49.09, in finding there was no genuine issue regarding intent to create a legally binding agreement, and in failing to consider whether the settlement should be enforced.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Rule 49 did not apply as no Rule 49 offers were served, that the motion judge's finding of a binding agreement was supported by detailed reasons with no palpable and overriding error, and that the motion judge had fully considered all relevant factors regarding enforcement.

The moving party, a law firm representing the general contractor in a consolidated construction lien and breach of contract action, brought a motion for a charging order under s. 34 of the Solicitors Act for unpaid legal fees.

The motion was opposed by a subcontractor who had obtained a judgment against the general contractor and served a notice of garnishment on the property owners.

The court granted the charging order, finding that the law firm was instrumental in recovering funds for its client.

The court further held that the funds recovered were not trust funds under the Construction Lien Act, and therefore the solicitor's charging order took priority over the subcontractor's garnishment notice.

The defendants (owners) brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(c) for directions on carrying a previous judgment into operation.

The dispute centered on whether the owners were required to pay the notice holdback amount twice: once to the successful subcontractor lien claimants under the Construction Lien Act, and again to the general contractor for breach of contract.

The court held that the owners, having properly retained the holdback, were not required to pay twice.

Payments made to the subcontractors from the holdback trust fund are to be set off against the amount owing to the general contractor under the judgment.