Brendan J. Hughes

This decision addresses an anti-SLAPP motion brought by Global News and its journalists to dismiss a libel suit initiated by Wenbin (Vincent) Ke, an Ontario MPP.

Mr. Ke sued after Global News published stories alleging his involvement in a Chinese government election interference scheme, based on leaks from CSIS agents.

The court found that while the reporting concerned a matter of public interest, there were grounds to believe the plaintiff's libel claim had substantial merit and that the defendants' defences of responsible communication and justification (of a lesser truth) could fail at trial.

The court weighed the public interest in protecting the plaintiff's reputation and ensuring democratic integrity against the freedom of expression, concluding that the public interest in allowing the proceeding to continue outweighed the interest in protecting the expression.

Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The court issued a costs endorsement following an anti-SLAPP motion.

Defendant Isabel Vincent, who successfully had the action dismissed against her, was awarded full indemnity costs of $90,000 from the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff, Theresa Kielburger, who successfully resisted the anti-SLAPP motion brought by the other Defendants (Canadaland Inc. et al.), was awarded substantial indemnity costs of $110,000 from Canadaland Inc. The court exercised its discretion under sections 137.1(7) and (8) of the Courts of Justice Act, noting Canadaland's brazen defense and callous disregard for the Plaintiff.

The defendants, Global News and its journalists, brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action brought by a Member of Parliament.

The defamation claim arose from news stories alleging the MP advised a Chinese diplomat to delay the release of two detained Canadians.

The court found that the defendants' expression related to a matter of public interest.

However, the plaintiff demonstrated that his defamation action had substantial merit and that the defendants' defenses of truth/justification and responsible communication were not valid.

The court concluded that the public interest in allowing the defamation proceeding to continue, to determine the truth of the serious allegations and vindicate the plaintiff's reputation, outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

The defendants' motion to dismiss was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following the successful dismissal of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) action against media defendants (Corus and JNN defendants) under section 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court determined that the successful defendants were entitled to full indemnity costs, as per the statutory presumption in section 137.1(7) of the CJA, finding no factors to displace this presumption.

The plaintiff failed to file responding costs submissions.

The court awarded the Corus defendants $92,820.00 in legal fees plus HST and disbursements, and the JNN defendants $66,402.00 in legal fees plus HST and disbursements, totaling $79,443.78.

The decision emphasizes the complexity and length of anti-SLAPP motions in justifying the quantum of costs.

This case involves two anti-SLAPP motions brought by media defendants (Global News, Corus Entertainment, and Jornal North News) to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by a former immigration lawyer.

The lawyer alleged defamation stemming from reports about his involvement in an alleged "Pilot Project" for undocumented workers, which government officials denied existed.

The court dismissed the defamation claims, finding that the media expressions related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff failed to show substantial merit to his claim, and the defendants had valid defenses of truth/justification and responsible communication.

The court also found that any harm suffered by the plaintiff did not outweigh the public interest in protecting freedom of expression.

This is a costs endorsement following the successful dismissal of an action against the defendant Aeden Helmer under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Mr. Helmer sought full indemnity costs of $78,580.35.

The plaintiff, Paula Riopelle, argued for no costs or partial indemnity, citing privacy concerns and the nature of the action.

The court affirmed the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs for successful anti-SLAPP motions, finding no basis to depart from it.

The court also assessed the quantum of costs, concluding that the amount claimed was fair, reasonable, and proportionate given the complexity and importance of the issues, including freedom of expression and the open court principle.

Mr. Helmer was awarded full indemnity costs of $78,580.35.

The defendant Aedan Helmer, a reporter, brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss an action for invasion of privacy and civil conspiracy brought by Paula Riopelle.

The action stemmed from an article published about criminal charges Riopelle faced.

The court found the article related to a matter of public interest due to the open court principle.

Riopelle failed to demonstrate that her claims had substantial merit or that Helmer had no valid defence, particularly regarding the conspiracy claim (lack of agreement) and privacy claims (publicly available information, no false light, no reckless disregard).

The court also found the public interest in protecting freedom of expression outweighed the public interest in allowing the proceeding to continue.

The motion was granted, and the action against Helmer was dismissed with costs.

The media parties sought to terminate or vary sealing orders related to Informations to Obtain (ITOs) for search warrants in a high-profile murder and terrorism case.

The Crown and the accused, Nathaniel Veltman, sought to maintain significant restrictions to protect fair trial rights and privacy.

The court applied the Sherman test, finding a serious risk to fair trial rights and privacy due to widespread pre-trial publicity.

The court ordered a publication ban on broad swathes of evidence and a limited sealing order on highly sensitive personal and graphic information, concluding these measures were necessary and proportionate to balance open court principles with fair trial rights and privacy.

The appellant, a corporation operating a Canadian Tire store, appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing a defamation action under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The motion judge found that a Facebook post and media article by the respondents describing poor customer service at the store related to a matter of public interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no extricable error of law or palpable and overriding factual error.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing her negligence action arising from an injury sustained while practicing long-jump techniques at a secondary school.

The trial judge found that the school board and its employees did not breach their duty of care and met the standard of a prudent parent.

The appellant raised eleven grounds of appeal challenging the trial judge's credibility assessments, factual findings, and treatment of expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding no palpable and overriding error and affirming the trial judge's comprehensive reasons and conclusions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

Postmedia Network Inc. applied to lift a sealing order on an Information to Obtain (ITO) related to a police investigation into Elizabeth Wettlaufer, who faced multiple murder and assault charges.

The Crown and counsel for the accused opposed the application.

The court applied the Dagenais-Mentuk test, finding that much of the redacted "Incriminating information" in the ITO posed a serious risk to the accused's fair trial rights, which could not be mitigated by alternative measures due to the national media attention and highly prejudicial nature of the information (e.g., confessions, DNA evidence).

While acknowledging the impact on freedom of the press, the court determined that the temporary sealing, with a further redacted version immediately accessible and a complete un-redacted version to be released after trial, balanced these rights.

The application to lift the sealing order was dismissed, but the existing order was varied to un-redact certain passages as detailed in Schedule A.

The plaintiff, a high school student, sued her coach, principal, and school board for negligence after sustaining a knee injury during track and field practice.

The court found that the defendants met the standard of care of a careful and prudent parent, and that the plaintiff's current physical condition and occupational aspirations were not causally related to the injury.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Cargojet Airways Ltd., brought an action for breach of contract and negligence against Aveiro Constructors Limited and Hatch Mott MacDonald Ltd. regarding defects in an aircraft hangar's insulation.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, and a contractual limitation period for Hatch.

The court found that Cargojet had sufficient knowledge of the material facts to commence a claim by May 3, 2010, and failed to act with due diligence.

Consequently, the action against Aveiro was statute-barred by the two-year statutory limitation period, and the action against Hatch was barred by its twelve-month contractual limitation period.

Both motions for summary judgment were granted, and the action was dismissed.

Three Toronto police officers charged with sexual assault sought a publication ban on investigative materials filed by the Crown in a related application to remove counsel.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test, finding a real and substantial risk to trial fairness due to potential juror stigmatization and witness tainting, especially given the salacious nature of the allegations against police officers.

While acknowledging the public interest in scrutiny, the court determined that allowing media access to the information (without publication) and expert commentary provided a sufficient substitute for full public disclosure.

The publication ban was granted, prohibiting publication until the jury retires or the charge is withdrawn/dismissed.