Brendan Hughes

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action arising from a podcast about a charitable organization and the plaintiff's family.

The court found that the podcast's repetition of allegations regarding the plaintiff's handling of charitable funds had substantial merit and no valid defence of responsible communication or fair comment for the host and media company.

However, the court found that the guest journalist had a valid defence of fair comment regarding her statements about a prior settlement.

The motion was dismissed for the host and media company, allowing the action to proceed against them, but granted for the guest journalist, dismissing the action against her.

Postmedia Network Inc. brought a motion to set aside a sealing order and publication ban granted on consent in a high-conflict family law proceeding.

The respondent opposed the motion, citing privacy, commercial interests, and the best interests of the children.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and found that the respondent failed to establish a serious risk to the administration of justice that would justify a complete sealing order.

The court vacated the sealing order but imposed a limited publication ban to protect the identities and privacy of the children, as well as personal identifiers to prevent identity theft.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion for summary judgment due to the expiry of the limitation period, the successful defendants sought costs.

One defendant sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the action was ill-conceived, and an additional fee for in-house counsel.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to both defendants, finding the case was not exceptional to warrant elevated costs and lacking documentation for the in-house counsel claim.

The court also declined to order the plaintiff to pay third-party costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion arising from a dispute over the conduct of examinations for discovery, specifically whether the plaintiff could attend the defendant’s discovery and the order in which discoveries should occur.

The action alleged misrepresentation and fraud relating to investments connected to speaking engagement events and an alleged IPO opportunity.

The court considered the principles governing exclusion of a party from attending an opposing party’s examination for discovery, including the requirement of “proper cause” and the risk of tailoring evidence where credibility is central.

Given evidence suggesting credibility would be a critical issue and concerns regarding potential tailoring of testimony, the court concluded that the interests of justice justified limiting attendance until one party had completed examination.

The plaintiff’s request to strike the defence and related relief was rejected, and directions were provided for how the discoveries should proceed.