Damien M.E. Buntsma

The defendants, Liquor Control Board of Ontario and Trillium Supply Chain Inc., brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for disclosing no cause of action and being frivolous/vexatious.

The plaintiff, 1923968 Ontario Ltd. o/a as Phyxiat Courier, opposed the motion.

The court largely dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the claim pleaded sufficient facts to establish proximity and a duty of care for negligence, and disclosed a germ of a claim for conspiracy and intentional interference with contractual relations.

However, the court struck certain paragraphs related to allegations against the Ontario government and overly broad negligence claims, granting the plaintiff leave to amend.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Morgan Canada Corporation, sought extensive injunctive relief against former employees and their new employer, alleging breach of fiduciary duties, breach of confidence, and spoliation.

The court found that Morgan Canada failed to establish a strong prima facie case for any of its claims, including that the former employees owed fiduciary duties or misused confidential information.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favored the defendants.

The motion for injunctive relief, appointment of an inspector, and a sealing order were dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following its decision to allow an appeal, set aside a dismissal order, and restore the action.

The appellants sought costs for both the appeal and the original motion.

The respondents argued against any costs award, particularly for the original motion, citing s. 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court found no basis to deny costs for the appeal, as the appellants were entirely successful, but reduced the quantum sought.

For the original motion, the Court clarified its previous finding regarding public interest, noting the motion judge erred, and applied the principle from Veneruzzo v. Storey that costs should be awarded to a successful respondent on a s. 137.1 motion if the lawsuit was not a SLAPP and the expression was unrelated to public interest.

The Court awarded the appellants their costs for both the appeal and the original motion.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their defamation action as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The action arose from allegedly defamatory statements made by the respondents in an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) pleading.

The motion judge found the expression related to a matter of public interest and dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred by characterizing the expression too broadly and by concluding that the specific impugned statements, which concerned a private dispute between competitors, related to a matter of public interest.

The Court clarified that purely private disputes, even if involving allegations of tortious conduct, do not automatically qualify as matters of public interest for anti-SLAPP purposes.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision granting the respondent judgment on its claim without set-off or stay pending the counterclaim.

The appellants raised three grounds of appeal: (1) that the motion judge failed to apply the appropriate test on summary judgment regarding equitable set-off and the interconnection of the claims; (2) that the motion judge erred in granting partial summary judgment; and (3) that the motion judge erred in piercing the corporate veil to impose personal liability on the individual appellant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court decision on all grounds, finding that the claims were not so closely connected as to warrant equitable set-off, that no inconsistency issues arose from the partial judgment, and that the circumstances supported personal liability based on the individual's control and direction of the company's actions.

The plaintiff, Distributions Katrina Inc., sought summary judgment for $132,105.07 for goods sold and delivered.

The defendants, Enroute Imports Inc. and Vincent P. Pileggi, resisted, asserting a defence of equitable set-off and a $5,000,000 counterclaim for alleged improper business practices.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for the undisputed debt, finding the equitable set-off inapplicable due to insufficient connection between the claims.

The plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaim was denied, allowing it to proceed to trial, but the court refused to stay the execution of the summary judgment.

The plaintiff, Sound Solutions, brought a summary judgment motion for breach of contract against Cladit Siding Solutions Inc. for unpaid invoices for construction panels, and for breach of trust against Cladit and Gregory Bell.

Cladit sought an equitable set-off for alleged panel deficiencies and damages from a counterclaim for intentional interference in contractual relations, loss of reputation, and punitive damages.

The court granted partial summary judgment to Sound Solutions for the breach of contract claim, allowing a set-off of $2,340 for costs incurred to remediate colour deficiencies, but dismissed the set-off for panel size and the counterclaim.

The breach of trust claim and Cladit's counterclaim were ordered to proceed to trial due to unresolved credibility issues and lack of cogent evidence for damages.

The Defendants/Appellants appealed a Master's decision that dismissed their motion to set aside a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and confirmed a $600,000 payment into court as security.

The appeal focused on the Plaintiffs/Respondents' counsel's failure to disclose to the Master that opposing counsel had requested notice of the ex parte CPL motion.

The court found that this non-disclosure was a material fact that adversely impacted the Master's ruling, leading to a palpable and overriding error.

The appeal was allowed, the CPL discharged, the security fund released to the Appellants, and substantial indemnity costs awarded against the Respondents.