4 total
Summary judgment was dismissed because the underlying share purchase agreement remains in dispute.
The plaintiff sought summary judgment on a promissory note in the amount of $1,650,000 provided by the defendants as vendor takeback financing for the purchase of the plaintiff's company pursuant to a share purchase agreement.
The defendants are pursuing a separate Ontario action claiming rescission of the share purchase agreement and damages for alleged misrepresentations and non-disclosures.
The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding it inappropriate to grant judgment on the promissory note while the entire underlying transaction remains in dispute in the related proceeding.
The court ordered that the promissory note claim may be tried together with or consolidated with the defendants' counterclaim, or asserted as a cross-claim in the related action.
The Court of Appeal reinstated a defamation action against a client who posted malicious online reviews, finding the harm to the contractors' professional reputation outweighed the public interest in the expression.
This appeal concerns the application of Ontario's anti-SLAPP provision, s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, in a defamation action arising from negative online reviews posted by a client against contractors.
The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the public interest in the expression outweighed the harm.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred by unduly focusing on SLAPP hallmarks, failing to adequately consider reputational harm, and not qualitatively assessing the value of the respondent's vitriolic expression.
The Court conducted a fresh analysis, concluding that the significant harm to the appellants' professional reputations outweighed the minimal public interest in the malicious and scurrilous statements, reinstating the defamation action.
Appeal dismissed; fresh evidence is admissible on a Rule 59.06(2) motion to vary a default judgment.
The appellant appealed an order varying a default judgment to include a declaration that the judgment debt survives his bankruptcy under s. 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
The appellant argued the motion judge erred by admitting fresh evidence and finding the pleadings sufficiently particularized a claim for misappropriation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that fresh evidence is admissible on a Rule 59.06(2) motion to vary, and the pleadings were sufficient to ground the claim.
Appeal dismissed; termination clause void for violating ESA standards, entitling employee to 10 months' notice.
The employer appealed a decision finding its employment contract's termination clause void for breaching the Employment Standards Act, 2000.
The application judge had awarded the employee ten months' common law notice.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the 'for cause' provision illegally contracted out of the ESA by applying a common law 'just cause' standard rather than the statutory 'wilful misconduct' standard.
The Court also found no error in the application judge's assessment of the ten-month notice period, which appropriately considered the Bardal factors and the economic uncertainty at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
