Cameron R.B. Fiske

The plaintiff commenced an action seeking damages for slander.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the statement of claim under the Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015 (anti-SLAPP legislation).

The parties could not agree on a timetable leading up to the motion, particularly because the defendant failed to attend her scheduled examination for discovery due to medical reasons.

The court fixed a timetable for the delivery of materials, completion of discoveries, cross-examinations, and factums leading up to the scheduled motion date.

Following a six‑day civil fraud trial in which the plaintiff recovered damages exceeding $150,000, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, relying on findings that the defendants engaged in deceitful and exploitative conduct and pointing to litigation conduct during trial.

Applying Rules 1.04 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant appellate guidance, the court held that substantial indemnity costs are reserved for rare and exceptional cases involving reprehensible conduct.

The court found that the conduct of one individual defendant and the corporate defendant warranted substantial indemnity costs, while another defendant’s lesser culpability justified only partial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $50,000 on a substantial indemnity scale and $32,500 on a partial indemnity scale, with joint and several responsibility apportioned among the defendants.

A vulnerable elderly homeowner brought an action alleging fraud, deceit, breach of contract, and negligence after contractors performing renovation work obtained over $138,000 through numerous consumer purchase contracts within approximately forty days.

The court found that a salesperson for the construction company exploited the plaintiff’s trust and vulnerability, repeatedly persuading her to approve unnecessary work and sign cheques.

The court concluded that the salesperson’s conduct constituted fraudulent misrepresentation and the tort of deceit, rendering most contracts void.

The construction company was held vicariously liable for its agent’s misconduct, and the company’s principal bore partial personal liability for failing to intervene despite warning signs.

Compensatory and aggravated damages were awarded.