C. Edwards

The respondents (Xus) brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the applicant's (Morven Construction) defamation application.

Morven sought an interim and permanent injunction against the Xus for defaming their quarry operation through signs, social media, and flyers.

The court found that Morven successfully met both the "substantial merit" and "no valid defence" hurdles, and that the public interest in allowing the defamation proceeding to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the Xus' expression, which was based on minimal investigation and characterized as strongly held personal opinion presented as fact.

The motion to dismiss was denied, allowing Morven's defamation lawsuit to proceed to trial.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside an ex parte Mareva order obtained by the plaintiff, which froze the proceeds of the sale of a property.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts, specifically regarding a 'secret' trust agreement and the plaintiff's lack of assets to satisfy its undertaking as to damages.

The court agreed, finding that the plaintiff's failure to disclose that the trust agreement was not public and that the plaintiff was a shell company without assets constituted material non-disclosures.

The court set aside the ex parte order.

The defendant, Matcor Automotive Inc., appealed a sentence of $270,000 (three counts at $90,000 each) imposed after conviction on three counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The conviction arose from a workplace incident in which a maintenance worker suffered catastrophic injury (paraplegia) due to inadequate training, supervision, and safety procedures regarding robotic equipment.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was fit and within the acceptable range, rejecting arguments that the sentencing judge erred in principle regarding proportionality, totality, inferences from evidence, consideration of prior convictions, and the acceptability of the sentencing range.

The plaintiff, a former insurance producer, sued DLK Insurance Brokers Ltd. and its partners for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, claiming he was promised an ownership interest in the business.

The defendants denied any such agreement and counterclaimed for a deficit in the plaintiff's commissions and damages for soliciting clients after his resignation.

The court found the plaintiff not credible, dismissed his claims for lack of a proven contract or unjust enrichment, and also dismissed the defendants' counterclaims for the commission deficit (due to forgiveness) and lost business (due to insufficient evidence of solicitation by the plaintiff alone).