Charles R. Daoust

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiff's defamation claim under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the defendant sought full indemnity costs of approximately $29,500.

The plaintiff argued that full indemnity costs were inappropriate because the claim had some merit and the defendant's statements were demonstrably false and reckless.

The court agreed with the plaintiff, finding that the lawsuit was not a traditional SLAPP and was driven by the defendant's recklessness.

The court rebutted the presumption of full indemnity costs and awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000.

The moving party brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss a defamation claim arising from his distribution of a petition criticizing the responding party's leadership of a religious society.

The petition included a false allegation that the responding party's family sold society lands without accounting for the proceeds.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the expression related to a matter of public interest, the responding party failed to show the claim had substantial merit or that there were no valid defences, and the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the harm to the responding party.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in a defamation action against the defendant.

The defendant had shared a screenshot of a video of the plaintiffs play fighting, falsely accusing them of racism and mocking the death of George Floyd.

The viral social media campaign resulted in the plaintiffs losing their jobs and facing severe harassment.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the statements defamatory and rejecting the defences of justification and fair comment.

The court awarded each plaintiff $50,000 in general damages and granted a permanent injunction requiring the removal of the posts.

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

The action arose from a Facebook post in which the defendant alleged the plaintiff had sexually, physically, and emotionally abused her during their marriage.

The court found that while the expression related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff demonstrated that his claim had substantial merit and that the defendant's defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege could realistically fail.

The court concluded that the severe harm to the plaintiff's career and reputation outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The motion was dismissed, allowing the defamation action to proceed.

The appellants, a dairy farm and its owner, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) to cancel their milk operating licence.

The cancellation followed a third shut-off from the milk market within a 24-month period due to elevated somatic cell counts and abnormal freezing point estimates.

The appellants argued the quality issues were caused by defective robotic milking equipment and poor technical support.

The Tribunal upheld the DFO's decision, finding that the appellants had received numerous warnings and failed to take timely corrective action, such as returning to a pipeline milking system, thereby posing an unacceptable risk to the safety and integrity of the milk marketing system.

The Kanata Greenspace Protection Coalition brought a motion to intervene as an added party in an application between the City of Ottawa and Clublink Corporation ULC regarding the proposed redevelopment of a golf course into residential housing.

The City sought to enforce a 40% green space agreement, and the Coalition, representing local residents, sought to support the City's position.

The court granted the Coalition restricted party status, finding that its members had a direct interest in the subject matter and could make a useful contribution without unduly delaying the proceedings or adding new issues.

The respondent, having successfully defended an application for judicial review, sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $42,600.

The applicants argued the amount was excessive and disproportionate, noting their own full indemnity costs were only $21,000.

The Divisional Court agreed the hours spent and number of lawyers involved by the respondent were disproportionate to the issues, which involved no factual disputes.

The court fixed costs at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Ottawa Public Library's decision to cancel their room rental agreement for the screening of a controversial movie.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on a preliminary issue, finding that the library's decision was private and contractual in nature.

Applying the Air Canada factors, the court concluded that the decision lacked the sufficient public character required to be amenable to judicial review, as it did not involve the exercise of a statutory power.