Annelise Do Rio

A pre-trial motion concerning the admissibility and use of will-say statements prepared by counsel for the applicant's witnesses.

The respondent sought an order permitting cross-examination of the witnesses on their will-says, or alternatively, requiring the statements to be translated and signed by the witnesses, or permitting cross-examination of the applicant on the preparation of the statements.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the will-say statements were provided in compliance with the undertakings given, were sufficiently detailed and meaningful, and that the respondent was not prejudiced by their late service.

The court clarified the proper use of will-say statements as disclosure tools rather than evidence, and protected communications between the applicant and her counsel regarding the preparation of the statements under solicitor-client privilege.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss a defamation action under section 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, arguing that their publications regarding childcare practices at a licensed daycare facility related to a matter of public interest.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the defendants' coordinated campaign of negative online reviews and social media posts were defamatory, malicious, and caused serious reputational and economic harm.

The court found that while the publications related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiffs established substantial merit to their defamation claim and that the defendants had no valid defences.

The court further found that the harm suffered by the plaintiffs outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression, particularly given evidence of a coordinated malicious campaign to shut down the daycare.

The motion was dismissed.

This decision concerns the penalty for civil contempt by the defendants, who breached a Mareva order by failing to disclose real property in Spain and denying ownership under oath.

The court finds that the appropriate sanction is to prohibit the defendants from dealing with the Spanish property and to require that net rental income from the property be paid to the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice until personal liability is determined.

The court also awards full indemnity costs to the plaintiffs for the contempt motion, with a set-off for costs on the motion to set aside the Mareva injunction.

This decision concerns a dispute over millions of dollars lent to Trip Support Inc., a failed “Book Now, Pay Later” airline ticket financing business.

The plaintiffs sought a contempt order for the defendants’ failure to disclose assets as required by a Mareva injunction, while the defendants moved to set aside the injunction for inadequate disclosure by the plaintiffs.

The court found the defendants in contempt for failing to disclose Spanish property, but also set aside the Mareva injunction due to the plaintiffs’ significant omissions in their ex parte motion materials.

The decision addresses the standards for contempt and the duty of full and frank disclosure in urgent injunction proceedings.