Amrita V. Singh

The Plaintiffs, a consortium of telecommunications and media companies, brought a motion to validate service of their Statement of Claim on the Defendant, Tomasz Kaczmarek, who is alleged to be involved in operating illegal pirated IPTV services.

Despite multiple attempts at personal service and registered mail, Kaczmarek appeared to evade service, including transferring property ownership.

The court granted the order validating service as of October 21, 2022, finding that Kaczmarek had notice of the claim and was evading service, and ordered costs payable by Kaczmarek on a substantial indemnity basis.

The appellant, Glassdoor Inc., appealed a motion judge's order denying its anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action.

The action stemmed from an anonymous critical employee review posted on Glassdoor's website about the respondent, Echelon Environmental Inc. The appellant argued the review related to a matter of public interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the review, concerning private complaints about a company providing specialized services to a small number of customers, did not relate to a matter of public interest.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal the costs order was also dismissed.

John Doe brought a motion to extend the time to serve and file a Notice of Appeal from a lower court order that denied his standing to appear as an anonymous party and make submissions on an Anti-SLAPP motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that Doe did not form a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant period, his delay was a result of a failed litigation strategy, and granting the extension would cause significant prejudice to the responding parties.

The court also found the proposed appeal lacked merit, rejecting the novel argument that Anti-SLAPP provisions protect anonymity in litigation.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for defamation over anonymous reviews posted by a former employee on Glassdoor's website.

Glassdoor brought a motion to dismiss the action under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, arguing the reviews were expressions on a matter of public interest.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the reviews regarding workplace conditions, salaries, and management style constituted a private grievance between a former employee and employer, rather than a matter of public interest.

The plaintiffs, creators of the cult film 'The Room', sought to extend an interlocutory injunction restraining the release of the defendants' documentary 'Room Full of Spoons'.

The defendants moved to dissolve the injunction, arguing material non-disclosure on the initial ex parte motion and failure to meet the test for an injunction.

The court dissolved the injunction, finding the plaintiffs failed to disclose material facts, including that the documentary's use of film excerpts likely constituted fair dealing.

The court also held that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the defendants' right to freedom of expression.

The applicant, Trader Corporation, operating digital marketplaces for vehicles, alleged copyright infringement by the respondent, CarGurus, Inc., a competitor, for posting photos taken by Trader's photographers on its own website.

Trader sought a declaration of infringement, a permanent injunction, and statutory damages.

The court found that Trader owned copyright in 152,532 photos and that CarGurus infringed them.

The fair dealing defence was rejected, and CarGurus was not considered an "information location tool" exempt from statutory damages.

However, the court found that the minimum statutory damages of $500 per photo would be grossly disproportionate and reduced the award to $2 per photo, totaling $305,064.

Requests for punitive damages and a permanent injunction were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 56.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking security for costs against a foreign corporate plaintiff with no assets in Ontario or Canada.

The plaintiff argued it had substantial assets in the United States and that any Ontario costs order could be enforced in California, a reciprocating jurisdiction.

The court held that the defendants met their initial burden because the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Ontario.

The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient financial evidence demonstrating its ability to satisfy a potential costs award.

The court therefore exercised its discretion to order staged security for costs while reducing the amount sought by the defendants.