Douglas F. Best

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff's defamation claim was statute barred under section 6 of the Libel and Slander Act (LSA).

The plaintiff published an article alleging the plaintiff hired a hacker to destroy a video of Mayor Rob Ford.

The plaintiff commenced the action more than three months after learning of the publication.

The defendants argued that the preconditions in sections 7 and 8 of the LSA were satisfied, making the three-month limitation period applicable.

The court found that the article was published in Ontario and that the publisher's information was substantially compliant with statutory requirements.

The motion was granted and the claim was dismissed as statute barred.

This costs decision addresses the aftermath of a motion/application in which the applicants sought to convert an application to an action, amend parties, and obtain interim relief regarding property.

The court declined to fix costs for the entire application, limiting its award to the motion before it.

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) was awarded partial indemnity costs, while no costs were awarded as between the applicants and the Quddus respondents due to mixed success.

The decision reviews the principles governing costs, including the principle of indemnity, reasonableness, and the impact of consent adjournments.

The applicants sought to convert an application to an action and amend their pleadings to include claims for misappropriation, a tracing order, a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), punitive damages, and negligence against CIBC's lawyer.

The court granted the conversion to an action (by agreement) and allowed the claims for misappropriation and tracing, finding they arose from existing factual allegations.

However, the court denied adding Zinnatus Salam as a plaintiff due to duplicative proceedings, dismissed the motion for an immediate CPL (though allowed the claim to be pleaded), and rejected claims for punitive damages and negligence against CIBC's lawyer, deeming them new, statute-barred causes of action or lacking factual basis.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion for discovery of documents from the City of Greater Sudbury and interveners in advance of cross-examinations on affidavits for a pending interlocutory injunction motion.

The Plaintiffs sought documents related to the City's alleged bad faith and unfair treatment towards them, particularly in comparison to how the City dealt with their neighbours (the interveners).

The court found that allegations of bad faith or unfair treatment were not relevant to the pleaded causes of action (negligence, negligent misrepresentation, estoppel) or the criteria for injunctive relief as currently framed in the Statement of Claim.

Consequently, the request for documents pertaining to the neighbours' properties (1380 Keast Drive and 1366 Keast Drive) was dismissed.

However, the court ordered the City to produce records of communications related to the Plaintiffs' own permit applications and construction at 1377 Keast Drive, finding these relevant.