D.L. Corbett

The plaintiff, a lawyer, brought actions against the defendants for a prolonged campaign of internet defamation and harassment related to his involvement in art forgery litigation.

After the defendants' statements of defence were struck and they were noted in default, the court held a damages hearing.

The court found the defamation allegations were properly pleaded and awarded the plaintiff $300,000 in general damages, $100,000 in aggravated damages, and $50,000 in punitive damages, plus costs.

The court also addressed the defendants' ongoing defiance of court orders and unexecuted bench warrants for contempt.

The appellant appealed an order striking its Notice of Objection under the Repair and Storage Liens Act and directing the release of a customized transport truck to the respondent.

The appellant argued that the work performed was 'manufacturing' rather than 'repair' and that federal regulations prohibited the vehicle's release.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the work constituted 'repair' under the Act and rejecting the argument that federal regulations superseded the provincial statutory remedy.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order for the partition and sale of a property under the Partition Act.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by ordering the sale despite a triable issue regarding a trust claim and by failing to find the respondent's conduct was malicious, vexatious, or oppressive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the respondent's desire to untangle financial affairs was reasonable and the appellant failed to establish prejudice arising from the sale.

The plaintiff sought judgment for defamation and damages, as well as the conclusion of contempt proceedings against the defendants.

The court found that the defamation allegations were properly pleaded and granted judgment against the defendants based on previous findings.

The plaintiff was awarded $41,600 in special damages for loss of fee income.

The contempt proceedings were adjourned due to the defendants' failure to appear, and a bench warrant was issued for their arrest with discretion.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a prior judgment granting permanent injunctions against the defendant for a years-long campaign of internet harassment and defamation.

The plaintiffs sought orders to remove new defamatory publications that came to their attention after the original summary judgment motions were argued.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing the court was functus officio and raising other procedural objections.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, holding that while it is functus officio regarding the claims decided in the judgment, it retains jurisdiction to enforce its orders.

The motion was granted.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order dated January 11, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing and awarded costs of $2,500 on a partial indemnity scale to the respondents.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision.

On consent of the parties, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot and without costs, noting that the dismissal neither affirms nor disapproves the reasoning of the decision below.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings before a member of the Law Society Appeal Panel, with the decision reserved.

In this case management teleconference, the application against the Attorney General of Ontario was dismissed on consent.

The application against the Law Society was stayed on consent pending the release of the Appeal Panel member's decision on the stay motion.

The self-represented appellant tenant failed to comply with a prior case management order requiring payment of $12,000 to the respondent landlord.

At a subsequent case management teleconference, the tenant confirmed no payment was made and advised of his intention to vacate the premises.

The court ordered the stay of the Landlord and Tenant Board's eviction order to be vacated, allowing the eviction to proceed with priority.

The court also set a schedule for the tenant to perfect the appeal if he chose not to abandon it.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision in her favour, seeking to introduce fresh evidence regarding the location of her property.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01, noting that fresh evidence alone is not a valid ground of appeal and should be raised in the trial court.

The appellant's submissions failed to state an arguable ground of appeal.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, without prejudice to any further steps the appellant might take in the Small Claims Court.

The moving party sought a stay of an order requiring her to leave the matrimonial home pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The court noted that deadlines were suspended due to COVID-19, so an extension of time was not required.

The court granted a temporary stay of the order until the final disposition of the motion for leave to appeal and set a timetable for the delivery of motion materials.

The Quebec Plaintiffs and the Defendants brought motions for leave to appeal an order of Belobaba J. dated November 21, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal.

Costs of $2,500 were ordered payable by each of the moving parties to the responding Ontario Plaintiffs.

The moving party, a declared vexatious litigant, brought a motion without notice seeking permission to apply under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to rescind the vexatious litigant order against her.

The court found the motion was an attempt to re-litigate the original order, which had already been upheld on appeal.

The court dismissed the motion as an abuse of process and entirely devoid of merit.

The applicant requested permission to bring a motion in writing to re-open evidence on four motions for judgment while decisions were under reserve.

The court denied the request, noting that court operations were suspended due to COVID-19 and only urgent matters were being heard.

The court further noted that the applicant failed to follow previous case management directions requiring her to schedule a case management conference and provide a detailed agenda before bringing any motions.

A case management conference was held regarding four defamation actions against the defendant, who failed to attend.

The defendant had previously failed to deliver motion materials for a stay and responding materials for summary judgment motions.

The court noted the defendant in default in one of the actions for failing to file a statement of defence as ordered.

Directions and deadlines were set for the plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and default judgment.

A case management conference was held regarding the respondent's failure to follow court orders in connection with her pending appeal of a contempt judgment.

The respondent did not attend the conference.

The court found that the respondent breached a previous order directing her to inquire about the status of transcripts required for her appeal and to provide the correspondence to the court.

The court ordered the respondent to comply with the previous directions by November 15, 2019, and to explain her non-compliance, warning that failure to do so could result in further contempt proceedings.

A case management conference was held which the plaintiff, Nadire Atas, failed to attend.

The plaintiff had previously been ordered to make Chavali requests to advance her litigation against Sutton Group and related parties but failed to do so.

The court found that the plaintiff had abandoned her litigation by conduct and breached multiple court orders.

Consequently, the court dismissed all claims against the defendants, awarding costs to one self-represented defendant who participated in the case management process.

In a case management endorsement, the court clarified that one of the actions involving the Chahals had already been dismissed, negating the need for a separate order.

The court also approved a draft order prepared by counsel for Mr. Sloan, rejecting the self-represented defendant's draft as a continuation of her contemptuous response to a previous order.

The deadline for submitting agenda items for the upcoming case management conference was extended.

The plaintiffs moved for an interlocutory injunction to enforce a restrictive covenant preventing the defendants from soliciting their alarm security customers, and to restrain the defendants from passing themselves off as the plaintiffs.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the restrictive covenant, finding that the plaintiffs' rebranding and refusal to provide customer lists made compliance impractical.

However, the court granted an injunction restraining the defendants from passing themselves off as the plaintiffs or as authorized by them, citing clear evidence of dishonest sales tactics.

The accused faced multiple charges relating to drug and firearms trafficking arising from a major police investigation involving wiretaps and surveillance.

The court found the primary target guilty of all charges based on overwhelming intercept and surveillance evidence.

Another accused was found guilty of purchasing a firearm and trafficking marijuana.

However, charges against two other accused were dismissed due to insufficient voice identification evidence and the legal principle that a mere purchaser in a bilateral transaction is not guilty of conspiracy.