Daniel Stern

Following convictions for manslaughter by failing to provide the necessaries of life to a child, a publication ban had been imposed under s. 486.5 of the Criminal Code protecting the identities of surviving siblings and information that could identify them.

A media organization sought to narrow or vary the ban, while counsel for the convicted parents requested the appointment of amicus curiae to advance the interests of the affected children.

The Crown ultimately supported narrowing the ban but took no position on the appointment of amicus.

The court considered competing interests between freedom of expression and the protection of vulnerable children.

The court appointed a child advocacy legal clinic as amicus curiae to assist in determining the proper scope of the publication ban before sentencing.

The plaintiff, a Toronto lawyer and community volunteer, brought a defamation action against a newspaper and journalist over an article questioning transparency in the handling of donations from a charity concert organized to raise funds for victims of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake.

The court held that, read in context, the article did not convey a defamatory meaning about the plaintiff.

In any event, the defendants established the defences of substantial truth, fair comment on a matter of public interest, and responsible communication.

The court also found no evidence of malice and concluded that the plaintiff had not proven any meaningful reputational harm.

In a certified class proceeding concerning an alleged defective charitable gift program, the plaintiff moved to amend the certified common issues and to stay the defendants’ third‑party claims against distributors until after the common issues trial.

Competing drafts of revised common issues and orders were submitted by the plaintiff, defendants, and another defendant concerned about exposure to an unpleaded claim.

The court preferred the plaintiff’s proposed revisions and order because they more directly preserved the objective of a focused common issues trial that would not bind or involve the distributors.

However, the proposed amendments required clarification to address concerns that they might create liability for negligent implementation of an otherwise valid program, which had not been pleaded or certified.

The court directed that the revisions be modified to limit the issues or, alternatively, that the plaintiff bring a motion to amend the statement of claim and certify the additional common issue.

Following dismissal of a counterclaim alleging wrongful dismissal and breach of contract and seeking $11.8 million in damages, the successful defendant by counterclaim sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $299,000.

The court considered Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles governing cost awards under the Courts of Justice Act, including the effect of an unaccepted Rule 49 settlement offer and allegations of uncooperative litigation conduct.

Although the court accepted that some conduct of opposing counsel created additional expense, it declined to award substantial indemnity costs.

Applying the objective of fairness and reasonableness to the unsuccessful party, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

A software developer and his corporation brought a counterclaim against a securities trading firm alleging wrongful dismissal and breach of contract following termination of his role as chief technology officer.

The court first determined that despite a services agreement structured through a corporation, the relationship functioned as employment, applying the multi‑factor test from Sagaz Industries.

The court held that a prior service agreement had been fully released by mutual release and could not ground claims.

It also rejected the claimant’s assertion that he was entitled to commissions based on algorithmic trading profits, finding the agreement applied to traders and not to a software developer who neither created strategies nor executed trades.

The court further found just cause for termination where the employee inserted malicious code into the firm’s trading platform, removed source code access, attempted to market competing software, and breached confidentiality obligations.

The counterclaim for wrongful dismissal and breach of contract was dismissed.