A. McInnis

The defendants previously brought an unsuccessful anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' $27 million defamation action regarding a publication about contraband tobacco.

The plaintiffs, as the successful responding parties, sought costs for the motion.

The court considered the presumption under section 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act, which states that a successful responding party is not entitled to costs unless appropriate in the circumstances.

Finding that the motion was not frivolous, involved matters of public interest, and lacked inappropriate behaviour by the defendants, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption.

No costs were awarded.

The defendants brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiffs' $27 million defamation action as a SLAPP suit.

The plaintiffs, who own a large tobacco manufacturing company, sued over a magazine publication alleging they smuggled contraband tobacco and were associated with organized crime.

The court found the publication related to a matter of public interest but concluded the plaintiffs' claim had substantial merit and the defendants failed to establish valid defences of justification, responsible communication, qualified privilege, or fair comment.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The defendants brought an unsuccessful summary judgment motion.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the defendants acted unreasonably in bringing the motion, as the case involved voluminous exhibits, credibility issues, and a 30-year history, making it clearly unsuitable for summary judgment.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $52,500.

A dispute arose from an agreement of purchase and sale requiring the defendant to reconvey a five‑acre parcel to the plaintiff following a severance under the Planning Act.

The defendant refused to sign severance documentation, asserting that its lease obligations with a third party required exclusive access and prevented consent to the severance.

The court held that the agreement’s entire agreement clause barred reliance on implied terms and that the defendant’s obligation to cooperate with the severance was clear and unconditional.

The proposed severance did not interfere with the approved development plan, and the defendant’s conflicting agreement with a third party did not excuse performance.

Because the plaintiff had effectively paid $200,000 for the reconveyed land and damages would be inadequate, the court granted specific performance compelling the defendant to execute documents and cooperate with the severance process.

Two actions were tried together regarding a 50-acre parcel of land.

In the first action, the plaintiff claimed $100,000 plus interest on a promissory note forming part of the consideration for the sale of a one-half interest in the property to the defendant company.

In the second action, the defendant company claimed the plaintiff and her husband made fraudulent misrepresentations to induce the purchase.

The court dismissed the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, finding no such representations were made and the purchaser had ample opportunity to review the transaction details.

The court upheld the validity of the promissory note and awarded judgment to the plaintiff for $100,000 plus prejudgment interest.