4 total
Competitor ordered to pay $10,000 in damages for defamatory statements made to private investigators.
The plaintiff, a scooter retailer, sued a competing retailer for defamation based on statements made by the defendant's principal to private investigators hired by the plaintiff.
The court found that the statements, which accused the plaintiff of unethical and illegal business practices, were defamatory and published.
The court awarded $10,000 in general damages but declined to grant a permanent injunction, finding no evidence that the defendants would continue to make defamatory statements after the judgment.
Appeal dismissed; unallocated trust funds properly directed to the Law Society's compensation fund.
The appellant appealed an order directing the payment of unallocated trust funds into the Law Society's compensation fund.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the order was a valid distribution under section 49.47(2) of the Law Society Act.
The Court held that section 51(2) does not exhaustively set out monies payable into the compensation fund, and sections 59.6 through 59.14 do not mandate payment of unallocated funds into the unclaimed trust fund account.
Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the respondent.
Motion for a third-party public interest hearing dismissed as the requested relief was punitive and retrospective.
The applicants sought to file a Notice of Hearing under s. 127 of the Securities Act to reprimand Commission Staff and rectify alleged past non-compliance related to the delayed issuance of a prospectus receipt.
The Secretary returned the draft notice, stating only Staff could bring a s. 127 hearing.
The applicants moved for directions.
The Commission declined to decide whether a third party could ever seek a s. 127 hearing, finding that even if they could, the relief sought here was punitive and retrospective.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Asbestos, the Commission held that s. 127 is a regulatory provision intended to be preventive and prospective, not to remedy alleged past misconduct or harm to private parties.
Adjournment of appeal granted on strict terms including posting $332,675 security due to delay.
The respondent requested an adjournment of its appeal to retain new counsel after its previous counsel was removed from the record.
The applicants opposed the adjournment, citing a pattern of delay and concerns about the respondent's solvency, and brought a motion to dismiss the appeal.
The Divisional Court granted the adjournment but imposed strict terms, including making the new hearing date peremptory to the respondent, requiring the respondent to post security of $332,675, and ordering the respondent to pay $5,000 in costs thrown away.
