Brian MacLeod Rogers

The plaintiff, Steven Bresnark, and the defendant, Thomson Reuters Canada Limited (TR), brought cross-motions for summary judgment in a libel and breach of privacy action concerning an article published by TR.

TR also sought to strike the privacy claim.

The court granted TR's motion for summary judgment and to strike the privacy claim, dismissing the action.

The court found the action statute-barred due to the plaintiff's awareness of the article in 2012, the article was protected by qualified privilege for fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings, and no common law or Charter privacy right was engaged.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The applicants, Dellen Millard and Mark Smich, sought an order prohibiting or delaying the publication of all evidence, submissions, and rulings made during their ongoing first-degree murder trial (Bosma case) and in the absence of the jury, until the completion of their separate trial for the murder of Laura Babcock.

The Crown and a Media Coalition opposed the broad scope of the requested ban, arguing that open court principles should apply and that jury safeguards provide adequate protection.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test, requiring a convincing evidentiary basis for a serious risk of prejudice that cannot be addressed by alternative measures.

The court granted the publication ban in part, extending it to specific mid-trial voir dire rulings and objections deemed to have a direct impact on the Babcock case and the applicants' fair trial rights, particularly concerning the "Eliminator" device and the transmission of letters from jail, as well as matters potentially affecting Ms. Noudga's fair trial rights.

In a libel action arising from statements in a book concerning alleged misconduct at a media corporation, the plaintiff moved under Rule 21 to strike numerous paragraphs of the defendants’ amended statement of defence.

The defendants relied on the “Pizza Pizza” defence, asserting they were entitled to plead contextual meanings and justification for the allegedly defamatory passages.

The court reviewed limits on libel pleadings, including prohibitions on pleading new libels, repeating defamatory statements of others, alleging worse conduct than that pleaded in the claim, or drafting pleadings designed to provoke oppressive discovery.

Applying these principles, the court struck multiple paragraphs that introduced new libels, repeated defamatory allegations, attacked non-parties, or would lead to disproportionate discovery.

Leave was granted to the defendants to further amend their pleading in accordance with the governing principles.

A media outlet sought an exemption from complying with a production order requiring disclosure of email communications between a journalist and a corporate spokesperson regarding price-fixing charges.

The court considered whether the communications were privileged or otherwise protected by law, and whether compliance would be unreasonable.

The court held that the communications did not originate in confidence, the spokesperson's identity was publicly disclosed in the article, and no case-by-case privilege attached.

The court also found no evidence that compliance would impose an unreasonable burden.

The application for exemption was dismissed.

In a defamation action arising from letters published in a newspaper criticizing veterinary services, the defendants brought a motion seeking production of additional documents before examinations for discovery.

The court considered the relevance and proportionality of the requested records under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

It ordered production of appointment records for the key date, client files relating to 33 clients allegedly lost due to the publication, and financial and client records underlying the plaintiffs’ damages expert report.

Requests for predecessor financial records and a mailing list were denied as premature or irrelevant.

The court rejected claims of confidentiality over client records due to lack of evidence establishing privilege and ordered the plaintiffs to serve a fresh affidavit of documents and proceed under a litigation timetable.

The Hamilton Spectator applied to unseal production orders and Informations to Obtain (ITOs) that had been sealed in connection with a fraud investigation involving allegations that the accused defrauded Citizenship and Immigration Canada of over four million dollars.

The court dismissed the application on jurisdictional grounds, finding that because one accused was awaiting trial in Superior Court and the mode of trial for the other two accused had not been determined, the application should be brought before a Superior Court judge rather than the Ontario Court of Justice.