David J. McGhee

The respondents successfully appealed the lower court decision.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs on a full indemnity basis, fixing costs at $40,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The court found that the suit had the markings of a true SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) and did not apply the presumption in section 137.1(7) of the Courts of Justice Act on appeal, but considered the nature of the suit in fixing costs.

The appellant, a major language services company, appealed the dismissal of its defamation action against the respondents under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondents had posted comments on an online bulletin board criticizing the appellant's business practices in the context of a federal election candidate's suitability for office.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding that the posts related to a matter of public interest and that the public interest in protecting freedom of expression outweighed the public interest in permitting the claim to proceed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal and refused leave to appeal the costs award of $30,000 on a full indemnity basis.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend its statement of claim regarding a disputed gas supply contract, seeking to withdraw an allegation of forgery and instead plead misrepresentation and deceit.

The defendant opposed the amendment, arguing it raised a new cause of action that was statute-barred.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that the fundamental issue remained the validity of the contract and the amendment did not constitute a new cause of action.

The court also noted that for limitation purposes, a new claim is commenced when the motion to amend is brought.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend its statement of claim to add the defendant's wife as a party and assert allegations of fraudulent conveyance, fraudulent misrepresentation, and alter ego liability.

The defendant opposed, arguing lack of particulars and that some claims were statute-barred.

The court found the proposed claims were not statute-barred as the limitation period commenced upon discovery of new facts.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to amend due to insufficient particulars of the alleged fraud, but granted leave to amend the statement of claim upon providing the necessary details.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The applicant sought a declaration under the oppression remedy of the Business Corporations Act that he was the legal and beneficial owner of 20% of the shares in the respondent company.

The shares were previously owned by his deceased spouse, who died intestate.

The respondents refused to transfer the shares, alleging that the applicant and his deceased spouse had breached a trust agreement regarding a real estate transaction years earlier.

The court granted the application, finding that the applicant was absolutely entitled to inherit the shares under the Succession Law Reform Act, and that the alleged breach of trust was both unrelated to the share entitlement and statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.