C. Fiske

The plaintiff in a civil defamation action sought an order under Rule 30.10 for the production of the complete and unredacted Crown brief relating to his ongoing criminal prosecution for sexual assault.

The Attorney General opposed the motion, arguing that disclosure could compromise the integrity of the ongoing criminal proceedings and risk witness taint.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the public interest in protecting the ongoing criminal prosecution outweighed the plaintiff's need for the documents at the early stage of the civil action.

The motion was adjourned sine die until the completion of the criminal proceedings.

The plaintiff claimed beneficial ownership of two residential properties legally owned by the defendant, relying on alleged express trust documents or, alternatively, an equitable trust.

The court found the express trust documents were forgeries.

However, based on the parties' joint venture to flip the properties and their respective financial contributions to acquisition, maintenance, and improvements, the court imposed constructive trusts.

The plaintiff was awarded an 81 percent beneficial interest in one property and a 32 percent beneficial interest in the other to remedy unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff grandmother sued her defendant grandson to recover funds she allegedly loaned him to pay estate debts and repair a home.

She brought a motion to amend her Statement of Claim to add allegations of undue influence, breach of fiduciary duty, and punitive damages, as well as to plead evidence obtained during discovery.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it plain and obvious that the proposed amendments could not succeed because undue influence is not a stand-alone cause of action, the material facts for breach of fiduciary duty were not pleaded, and there was no independent actionable wrong to support punitive damages.

The plaintiff successfully defeated the defendant's anti-SLAPP motion in a defamation action and subsequently sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the presumption against costs to a successful responding party under s. 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court declined to award costs, finding no compelling reason to depart from the statutory presumption and noting that awarding costs solely because the impugned comments lacked public interest could deter the use of anti-SLAPP legislation.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action.

The plaintiff, a real estate agent, sued the defendant, a community association board member, for allegedly spreading false rumours about her professional conduct and real estate licence.

The court found that while the broader community dispute regarding lot severances was a matter of public interest, the specific defamatory words complained of were mere gossip and personal attacks unrelated to that public interest.

The motion was dismissed.