Christopher Ashby

The plaintiff brought a defamation action arising from an internet article that repeated and endorsed allegations originally published in a national newspaper accusing the plaintiff of fabricating racist material to support human rights complaints.

The defendant republished the article on a website and added commentary portraying the plaintiff as corrupt and engaged in “phony-racism.” The court found the publication clearly defamatory and rejected the defences of fair comment, qualified privilege, and responsible communication, holding that the article primarily asserted defamatory facts and that internet publication to the world was not an occasion of privilege.

The defendant had relied on a previously retracted newspaper article without conducting further verification.

General damages of $10,000 were awarded, and the defendant’s posted retraction and apology were found inadequate to reduce the damages.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $5,000 to the respondents.

The applicant alleged he was terminated from his employment because of a disability for which he claimed WSIB benefits, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the substantive duty to accommodate was not breached, as the applicant was unable to perform the essential duties of his position and his prognosis was unknown, which would cause undue hardship.

However, the Tribunal found that the employer breached the procedural duty to accommodate by failing to actively inquire into whether the applicant's restrictions could be accommodated.

The Tribunal awarded $2,000 for the procedural breach, reduced by $1,900 owed by the applicant to the employer, resulting in a net order of $100.

The appellant general contractor appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent subcontractor damages for unpaid invoices.

The trial judge had dismissed the appellant's claims for set-off related to water damage caused by the respondent and a disputed administrative mark-up fee.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors by misapprehending uncontradicted evidence that established the respondent's negligence caused the water damage, the quantum of the resulting back-charge, and the respondent's failure to perform the services required to earn the mark-up fee.

The trial judgment was set aside and the action dismissed.

The applicants, licensed by the Ontario Racing Commission, faced a hearing regarding licence suspensions, disqualification of horses, redistribution of purses, and significant fines.

They brought an urgent application for judicial review before a single judge of the Divisional Court, arguing that the Commission failed to provide adequate pre-hearing disclosure, specifically witness statements or summaries.

The court held that in administrative cases involving the loss of livelihood, the standard of disclosure approaches the criminal standard, requiring summaries of anticipated evidence.

The court prohibited the Commission from commencing the hearing until 20 days after the required disclosure was made.

The appellant appealed a trial decision finding it suffered no damages after its loader was damaged by the defendant.

The trial judge had characterized the appellant's payments for the damaged machine as lease costs rather than contributions toward a purchase under a conditional sales contract.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the appellant was forced to incur the expense of renting an alternative loader while waiting for the insurance company to write off the original machine, and awarded damages for the rental costs.

The appellant, a bartender on the respondent's boat, appealed the dismissal of her action for damages after she fell while descending a ladder and broke her leg.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the appellant was the author of her own misfortune and preferring the respondent's evidence regarding the appellant's footwear.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility findings or his conclusion that the respondent was not negligent under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeals, the successful respondents sought partial indemnity costs of $7,000 for each of the two appeals.

The respondents argued for a premium based on policy considerations and the appellant's conduct.

The court rejected the request for a premium or substantial indemnity costs, finding that the appellant raised genuine issues regarding jurisdiction and damages.

The court fixed the costs payable by the appellant to the respondents at $4,500 for each appeal, for a total of $9,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellant travel company appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding damages to a married couple for a ruined vacation.

The appellant argued the couple improperly split their case to circumvent the $10,000 Small Claims Court limit, that it was not responsible for the disappointing holiday, and that the damages were excessive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that each spouse had a separate contract with the appellant and was entitled to bring a separate action.

The court also upheld the trial judge's findings of misrepresentation and the assessment of damages for loss of enjoyment and wasted vacation time.

The appellants sued the respondent for defamation, interference with economic relations, and intentional infliction of nervous shock, covering incidents before and after a June 2000 settlement agreement.

The motions judge granted summary judgment dismissing several claims, finding that a mutual release in the settlement agreement barred the pre-settlement defamation claims, even if the respondent had repudiated the agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that repudiation does not discharge matured rights like a mutual release.

The Court also upheld the dismissal of the post-settlement claims and the costs order.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his defamation action against the respondent law firm.

The motions judge had found the words published on the firm's website were not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning and were protected by qualified privilege.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the words were capable of a defamatory meaning and that the evidentiary basis was insufficient to resolve the defence of qualified privilege at the summary judgment stage.

The matter was remitted for trial.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment, arguing that the respondent fundamentally breached their contract by failing to invite the appellant to a conference.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's conclusion that the exclusion did not deprive the appellant of substantially the whole benefit of the contract, which was primarily to increase sales through preferred supplier status.

The landlord appealed a trial judgment declaring the tenant's rights under a commercial lease.

The trial judge had found in favour of the tenant regarding the validity of an option to purchase, the basic rent, the landlord's obligation to deliver the premises in good working order, and the tenant's right to rent abatement and set-off due to building code deficiencies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and his interpretation of the lease was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for defamation.

The trial judge preferred the evidence of a witness who recorded the appellant's comments, concluding the words left the clear inference that the respondent was guilty of corrupt and criminal behaviour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying the high standard of deference owed to a trial judge's findings of fact.

Following an appeal where the appellants achieved substantial success in reducing the damages award, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The Court of Appeal held that the respondents were still entitled to their party and party costs of the trial because the principal findings of liability were not altered and they largely succeeded in their claim.

The court declined to alter the costs of the appeal, confirming the appellants were entitled to them due to their substantial success.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that found they had overvalued inventory in a share purchase agreement and ordered them to repay the purchase price.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the inventory was overvalued but found the trial judge erred in calculating damages by failing to deduct a tax benefit and settlement proceeds received by the purchaser.

The Court reduced the purchaser's damages to $186,781.

The Court also allowed the appellants' counterclaim for $300,000 on an earn-out promissory note, setting off the purchaser's damages against this amount.

As a result, the personal action against the appellant guarantor was dismissed.

The defendants appealed a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff doctor $200,000 in general damages for defamation arising from a television broadcast.

The plaintiff cross-appealed the dismissal of his claim for aggravated damages.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's liability findings or assessment of general damages.

However, the Court allowed the cross-appeal, finding that the plaintiff was attacked in his profession and defamed using his own distorted words, warranting an award of $150,000 in aggravated damages.

The defendants appealed a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff physician $200,000 in general damages for defamation arising from an investigative television broadcast.

The broadcast suggested the plaintiff knowingly prescribed dangerous heart medication and was dishonest.

The trial judge found the broadcast defamatory, rejected defenses of qualified privilege and fair comment, and found malice.

The plaintiff cross-appealed the denial of exemplary damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants' appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's liability or general damages assessment.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal, awarding $150,000 in exemplary damages because the defendants distorted the plaintiff's words and maintained their position through the appeal despite the finding of malice.