3 total
Anti-SLAPP motion dismissed; statements made during local union election do not relate to public interest.
The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action arising from statements made during a local union election.
The court found that the election of an official to a local union is a private matter and not a matter of public interest under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.
The court also noted that the statements, which included allegations of criminal conduct and vulgar language, were not the type of expression worthy of protection.
The motion was dismissed.
Appeal allowed; insufficient evidence to determine if WhatsApp messages constitute a 'broadcast' under the Libel and Slander Act.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court order staying his defamation action regarding statements made by the respondents on WhatsApp and posters during a union election.
The Deputy Judge had stayed the action on the basis that the appellant failed to give notice under the Libel and Slander Act, finding that WhatsApp messages constituted a 'broadcast'.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Deputy Judge erred by concluding WhatsApp was a broadcast without a sufficient evidentiary record, and by failing to address the poster statements.
The court upheld the Deputy Judge's finding that the union constitution did not mandate arbitration for this dispute.
The court dismissed the purchaser's motion for relief from forfeiture, allowing the vendor to retain a 28% deposit.
The plaintiff brought a motion seeking relief from forfeiture of a deposit totaling approximately 28% of the purchase price for a condominium, arguing it would be unconscionable for the vendor to retain the full amount.
The court applied the two-part test for relief from forfeiture under section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act, requiring the forfeited sum to be out of proportion to damages and its retention to be unconscionable.
While the deposit percentage was higher than the vendor's usual 20% and the upper range of 25% found in some case law, the court found no indicia of unconscionability, such as inequality of bargaining power, an unfair bargain, or unsophistication on the plaintiff's part.
The vendor's conduct, including crediting a previous deposit and offering extensions, weighed against a finding of unconscionability.
The motion was dismissed, and the vendor was entitled to retain the full deposit.
