B. Sachdeva

The defendant moved to dismiss a defamation action brought by a long-term care home and its CEO regarding tweets she made alleging elder abuse and neglect of her mother.

The court granted the anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, finding that the tweets related to a matter of public interest and that the plaintiffs failed to show sufficient harm to outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant.

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's lawyer and his law firm as counsel of record, arguing that the lawyer would be a necessary witness at trial regarding allegations of interference with economic relations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it highly doubtful that the lawyer would be a necessary witness on a material issue.

The court concluded the motion was premature and brought mainly for tactical reasons, driven by one defendant's strong antipathy toward the lawyer.

The third party brought a motion for default judgment on its counterclaim against the defendants, while the defendants brought a motion declaring the counterclaim improper.

The parties resolved the substantive issues on consent but could not agree on costs.

The court reviewed the conduct of both parties, noting the third party's premature noting in default and the defendants' failure to retain counsel promptly.

The court concluded that both parties bore some responsibility for the costs incurred and ordered that each party bear their own costs.