Christine Johnson

This decision concerns an anti-SLAPP motion brought by the defendants, Trinitee Okoye and Olivia Singaye, seeking to stay or dismiss a defamation action by the plaintiffs, Reynolds Okoh, Axel Mensah, and 2357392 Ontario Inc. o/a The Palace Ottawa.

The court found that the impugned social media posts did not constitute expression on a matter of public interest within the meaning of section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Even if the threshold were met, the court held that the action had substantial merit and the defences of justification and fair comment were unlikely to succeed.

The motion was dismissed.

This costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario addresses the allocation and quantum of costs following the respondents' success in opposing the appeal.

The court fixes costs at $20,000, apportioned 90% to the group represented by Manson and Fleury, and 10% to the group represented by Overwater, to be paid within 30 days.

The appellants, defendants in a proposed class action arising from the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa, appealed the dismissal of their anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no reversible error in his conclusions that there were grounds to believe the plaintiffs' claims for private and public nuisance had substantial merit, that the defendants had no valid defence, and that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Leanne Aubin, brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant, James Bowie, her former criminal defence lawyer.

The plaintiff sought damages for breach of fiduciary duty, breaches of the Human Rights Code (sexual harassment), and defamation, as well as punitive damages.

The defendant was noted in default.

The court found the defendant liable for a staggering breach of fiduciary duty due to his repeated sexual propositions, sending an intimate photograph, and suggesting alcohol/drugs/sex when the plaintiff was in distress.

The court also found the defendant liable for sexual harassment under the Human Rights Code and for defamation through a social media chat where he disclosed confidential information and made false allegations.

The court awarded $75,000 for breach of fiduciary duty, $65,000 under the Human Rights Code, $30,000 for defamation, and $25,000 in punitive damages, totaling $195,000, plus $40,000 in costs.

The applicant police services board sought judicial review of a grievance arbitrator's decision that granted retroactive statutory holiday benefits to union members for the National Day of Mourning for Queen Elizabeth II.

The arbitrator had found that the collective agreements only required a day to be 'proclaimed' by the Governor General to become a paid holiday.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and quashed the decision, finding the arbitrator's interpretation unreasonable as it failed to consider the parties' mutual intention and led to the absurd result that any symbolic proclamation would create an additional paid holiday.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a noting of default.

The defendant also sought orders to stay the action pending a criminal proceeding and to seal evidence, but these were not considered as the defendant, being in default, had no right to request such relief without leave.

The court applied the seven-factor test for setting aside default, considering the parties' conduct, the length and reasons for delay (including the defendant's mental health issues), the complexity and value of the claim, and the balance of prejudice.

Despite the defendant's obstructive behaviour during cross-examination, the court emphasized the principle of resolving civil proceedings on their merits.

The motion to set aside the noting of default was granted, with conditions for the defendant to file a compliant statement of defence and pay costs thrown away.

The Superior Court of Justice rendered a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action under anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court addressed the appropriate scale and quantum of costs, considering the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs for successful anti-SLAPP motions and recent conflicting Court of Appeal guidance on costs guidelines.

The court awarded the Canadian Nurses Association Defendants $250,000.00 on a full indemnity basis and the Together News Inc. Defendants $65,000.00 on a substantial indemnity basis, finding these amounts fair and reasonable given the case's complexity and the parties' expectations prior to new appellate guidance.

This endorsement addresses costs submissions following a decision on competing pleading motions in a class action.

The plaintiffs were substantially successful in their motion to amend pleadings, while the defendants' parallel motion to strike was largely unsuccessful.

Despite the plaintiffs' success, the court declined to award costs to either party, citing the public importance of the litigation, which involves exploring the boundaries of constitutionally protected protest rights versus the rights of individual citizens to seek compensation for disruption.

This motion addressed the form of the Statement of Claim in a proposed class proceeding related to the "Freedom Convoy" protest in Ottawa.

The plaintiffs sought to amend their claim, while a group of defendants moved to strike it.

The court found that the proposed Statement of Claim disclosed plausible causes of action for private and public nuisance, and joint liability, including for punitive damages.

The court largely allowed the plaintiffs' motion to amend, granting leave to issue a further fresh as amended statement of claim and to add new defendants, but ordered the removal of certain paragraphs deemed extraneous, inflammatory, or evidentiary.

The defendants' motion to strike was largely dismissed.

The plaintiffs, a group of nurses and their organization who organized protests against COVID-19 mandates outside hospitals, sued the defendants for defamation over statements and articles criticizing their actions.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the plaintiffs' claim had substantial merit, they failed to show that the harm they suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions on matters of public health.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought an emergency interlocutory injunction against the defendants, who were involved in a protest causing severe noise disturbance in downtown Ottawa.

The defendants' counsel requested an adjournment, citing insufficient time to review extensive materials and prepare a proper defense.

The court, acknowledging the national importance of the matter and the need for a complete record to craft an enforceable *in persona* injunction, granted the adjournment until February 7, 2022.

The judge emphasized the inherent difficulty of framing an enforceable injunction against a large, fluid group of unnamed parties and the equitable requirement for certainty in such orders.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for an injunction, the court determined the costs of the motion.

The plaintiff argued costs should be in the cause, while the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs payable forthwith.

The court applied the presumptive 'pay as you go' rule under Rule 57.03, finding no reason to depart from it.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the motion was not frivolous or an abuse of process.

Partial indemnity costs totaling $44,000 were awarded to the various defendants, with payment extended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent former employees and their new competing businesses from soliciting its customers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, as the non-competition agreements were either expired or likely unenforceable.

Furthermore, the court found no irreparable harm, concluding that damages would be an adequate remedy if the plaintiff ultimately succeeded at trial.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of dental services based on disability.

The respondents sought summary dismissal of the application and, alternatively, deferral pending the outcome of a concurrent complaint to the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario.

The Tribunal dismissed the reprisal allegation for having no reasonable prospect of success, but allowed the accommodation and discriminatory labelling claims to proceed to a merits hearing.

The Tribunal also denied the request to defer the application, finding that section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act would render any factual findings from the College proceeding inadmissible at the Tribunal.

The plaintiff, a 58-year-old top-performing sales manager with eight years of service, brought a wrongful dismissal action against his former employer.

The court found the plaintiff was an employee, not an independent contractor, from the start of his engagement.

The court awarded a 12-month reasonable notice period, calculating damages based on base salary and an upward trend in commissions.

The court dismissed the claim for aggravated damages due to insufficient evidence of mental distress, but awarded $50,000 in punitive damages because the employer alleged just cause in bad faith as a negotiation tactic and significantly delayed paying statutory entitlements.

The applicant alleged that his union discriminated against him on the basis of disability by assisting his employer in requesting a medical note before he could attend a convention, and by creating barriers to a grievance settlement.

The respondent union requested a summary dismissal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the matter pertained to the duty of fair representation.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success, noting that the union did not formulate a discriminatory rule but merely assisted in communicating the employer's demands, which does not amount to differential treatment under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested to reactivate and amend his human rights application following the conclusion of a related Workplace Safety and Insurance Board proceeding.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal ordered the application reactivated and granted the request to amend, noting it was timely and would not prejudice the respondent.

The applicant, a combo truck driver, suffered a workplace injury to his shoulder and groin.

After a period of modified work and a return to regular duties, the applicant claimed he was still disabled and requested further accommodation.

The respondent, believing the applicant was malingering and attempting to leverage his injury for better employment terms, refused to offer further modified work and effectively terminated his employment.

The Tribunal found that the issue of the applicant's disability and the initial failure to accommodate had been appropriately dealt with by the WSIB.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent breached both the procedural and substantive components of the duty to accommodate when it refused to engage in further dialogue and terminated the applicant's employment.

The applicant was awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with compensation for lost wages and retraining costs.

The appellant, an HIV-positive inmate, was placed in administrative segregation due to safety concerns regarding his sexual relations with other inmates.

He applied for habeas corpus, which was dismissed by the application judge despite findings of minor procedural flaws in the segregation review process.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the application judge lacked discretion to deny the writ once a breach of procedural fairness was found.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the procedural flaws did not render the detention unlawful and that the application judge properly exercised his residual discretion to deny the writ.

The applicant, a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Global Developmental Disability, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after being discharged from an intensive behavioural intervention program.

The applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) as a respondent, after learning from the Ministry of Children and Youth Services that CHEO was responsible for determining eligibility for the program.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal granted the request, finding that CHEO might share responsibility for the alleged Code violations and that it would be fair to add them as a respondent.