Douglas W. Judson

The moving parties sought an order allowing the registration of a Certificate of Pending Litigation against recreational real estate near Kenora, Ontario.

The property was transferred two days after the death of the original owner through a right of survivorship and then to the respondent Parks, allegedly as a gift.

The estate trustee and beneficiary challenged the validity of the transfer due to suspicious circumstances and the failure to produce the transfer documents.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing a full hearing was necessary.

The court granted the Certificate of Pending Litigation, finding the test was met and the purpose of the procedure justified its issuance despite the motion being brought on notice.

The defendant brought a motion seeking to transfer the action from Brampton (Central West Region) to Fort Frances (Northwest Region) and to require the plaintiff to post security for costs.

The plaintiff, a Colorado corporation conducting dog agility shows, sued the defendant for breach of contract, breach of confidential information, intentional damage to personal property, bad faith, libel, slander, and unlawful interference with economic relations.

The defendant, a resident of Fort Frances, was served there.

The court found that none of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Ontario, no damages were sustained there, and the subject matter had no connection to Brampton.

The court granted the transfer to Fort Frances and ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in the amount of $5,000 within 30 days, finding the plaintiff had not met its onus of demonstrating sufficient assets in Ontario or a reciprocating jurisdiction.

A police inspector brought a defamation action against a law student for an X post commenting on allegations of discriminatory treatment of officers on mental health leave at the Thunder Bay Police Service.

The defendant moved to dismiss the action under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP motion).

The court found that while the expression related to a matter of public interest, the defendant established a valid defence of justification based on publicly available information from news articles and Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario proceedings.

The court also found that the public interest in protecting the defendant's expression on matters of significant public concern outweighed any harm to the plaintiff's reputation.

The motion was granted and the defamation action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, including a national not-for-profit HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C treatment information organization and its employees and board members, brought a defamation action against the defendant for an online libel campaign.

The defendant created profiles on his website labeling the plaintiffs as "groomers" and pedophiles, posted defamatory content on social media platforms, and left threatening voicemail messages at the plaintiffs' workplace.

The defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred stemming from the plaintiffs' association with the 2SLGBTQIA+ community.

The defendant failed to respond to the action and was noted in default.

The court granted default judgment, finding the statements were clearly defamatory, and awarded substantial general and aggravated damages.

A permanent injunction was issued requiring removal of all defamatory publications and prohibiting further defamatory statements.

The court considered written submissions on costs following the plaintiffs' success in two related defamation actions against the defendant.

The plaintiffs were awarded substantial indemnity costs in both actions, reflecting the court's view of the defendant's egregious conduct and the importance of deterrence.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments for lower costs and found the plaintiffs' bills of costs reasonable, noting the complexity and significance of the proceedings, including the involvement of expert witnesses and an intervenor.

The court considered written submissions on costs following the plaintiffs' success in two related defamation actions against the defendant, Brian Webster.

The plaintiffs were awarded substantial indemnity costs due to the egregious nature of the defendant's conduct and the failure to accept reasonable offers to settle.

The court found the plaintiffs' costs reasonable and rejected the defendant's arguments for lower costs, emphasizing the importance and complexity of the proceedings and the impact on the drag community.

The court granted default judgment in favour of Dawn Christine Spellman against her brother, Steven Mark Spellman, for breach of fiduciary duty as administrator of their late father's estate.

The decision details Steven's misappropriation of estate assets, failure to account, and disregard for court orders, resulting in an award of general and punitive damages, as well as costs, to Dawn.

The court also ordered that Steven's share of their mother's estate be used to satisfy the judgment.

The court granted summary judgment in two related libel actions brought by Felicia Crichton, John-Marcel Forget, Rainbow Alliance Dryden, and Caitlin Hartlen against Brian Webster.

The plaintiffs alleged that Webster's social media posts falsely labelled them as "groomers" and pedophiles, causing reputational harm and distress.

The court found the posts were defamatory, identified the plaintiffs, and were published to third parties.

Webster's defences, including fair comment, were rejected.

The court awarded each plaintiff $75,000 in general damages and $20,000 in aggravated damages, finding Webster's conduct was malicious and constituted hate speech.

The court granted summary judgment in two related libel actions brought by Rainbow Alliance Dryden, Caitlin Hartlen, Felicia Crichton, and John-Marcel Forget against Brian Webster.

The plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Webster published defamatory posts on Facebook, falsely associating them with grooming and sexual predation of children.

The court found the posts were defamatory, identified the plaintiffs, and were published to third parties.

The court rejected Mr. Webster’s defences, including fair comment, and found he acted with malice.

General and aggravated damages were awarded to each plaintiff.

The applicants sought orders to remove the respondent as executor and estate trustee of the Estate of Milton Westover, revoke her certificate of appointment, and appoint a replacement trustee.

The applicants alleged the trustee delayed administration, had conflicts of interest, wasted assets, failed to account, disrespected court orders, and lacked capacity.

The respondent argued the applicants lacked standing.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants, as judgment creditors or potential judgment creditors, did not possess the requisite "financial interest" in the estate to establish standing under Rule 75.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, consistent with a narrow interpretation of this term in estate litigation.

The defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' defamation action was unsuccessful.

This decision addresses the plaintiffs' request for costs.

Despite a statutory presumption against costs for unsuccessful anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court exercised its discretion to award partial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

The court found that the original lawsuit did not exhibit the characteristics of strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) and the impugned expression was not public interest speech.

Considering factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the complexity and importance of the issues, the court awarded $10,000 in costs to the plaintiffs, reducing the amount claimed due to concerns about the hours spent and the number of lawyers involved.

The Estate of Hermina Fletcher sought punitive damages against Lindsey Coyle, who had previously been found liable for $130,000 in compensatory damages and sentenced to two years imprisonment for criminal negligence causing death.

The court considered the objectives of retribution, deterrence, and denunciation, and the fact that Coyle had already received a significant criminal sentence and lost her profession.

The motion for punitive damages was dismissed, with no order as to costs, as the combination of compensatory damages and the prison sentence was deemed sufficient to achieve the objectives.

The appellant, as litigation administrator of her father's estate, appealed the dismissal of an action concerning an alleged unauthorized property transfer and a personal costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the property transfer was authorized, for valuable consideration, and that the action was statute-barred.

The court also dismissed the costs appeal, affirming the personal costs award against the appellant due to her unreasonable conduct and pursuit of litigation primarily for personal benefit based on unsubstantiated fraud allegations.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of an application alleging a contravention of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The respondent, who successfully defended the application, sought costs on an actual or substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for a significantly lower amount.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, applied the principle of reasonableness.

Despite the respondent's offer to settle for dismissal without costs, the court found the quantum sought by the respondent excessive given the limited complexity and duration of the proceeding.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, increased due to the respondent's offer to settle, for a total of $15,000.00 to be paid by the applicant.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent, a municipal councillor, contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) by participating in a council vote to indemnify himself and other councillors for legal expenses incurred in responding to a Human Rights Tribunal application.

The applicant argued the respondent had a pecuniary interest and sought to have his seat declared vacant.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the respondent's actions did not contravene the MCIA, particularly under the s. 4(i) exception for benefits related to a member's duties, and that the indemnification by-law was mandatory.

The court also noted that even if there was a contravention, the severity claimed was not warranted, and the respondent acted in good faith.

This motion concerned a claim for damages against a nurse, Lindsey Coyle, who falsified medication orders and failed to administer medication to patient Hermina Fletcher, leading to Ms. Fletcher's death from morphine toxicity.

Coyle had pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death.

The plaintiffs, Ms. Fletcher's Estate, her son, and granddaughter, sued Coyle for damages.

Coyle did not defend the action.

The court found that the common law doctrine of fraudulent concealment suspended the limitation period, making the action timely.

Coyle was found liable.

The court assessed general damages for the Estate at $25,000 and damages for loss of care, guidance, and companionship under the Family Law Act for the son at $40,000 and the granddaughter at $25,000.

The motion also granted a sealing order, a bar order preventing Coyle from seeking contribution or indemnity, and awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis ($40,000), with the balance of the motion adjourned for the determination of punitive damages.

This endorsement addresses procedural issues arising from a previous order, including the defendant's failure to bring a Rule 59.06 motion to set aside a costs order and his informal application for a transcript from a separate case conference.

The court clarifies that case conference transcripts are generally not available to litigants unless ordered by the presiding judge, and directs the defendant to formally apply to the original presiding judge for the transcript.

The court also grants an extension of timelines for the defendant's anti-SLAPP motion materials and sets a new return date for the Rule 59.06 motion, while reiterating that its previous interlocutory order regarding the consolidation of anti-SLAPP motions stands, subject to appeal.

This endorsement from a case management conference addresses procedural issues in two related actions.

The court set a timeline for the defendant's anti-SLAPP motion in one action and ordered that any anti-SLAPP motion in the second action be heard concurrently, citing efficiency and consistency.

The court also set a timeline for the defendant's Rule 59 motion regarding a prior costs order.

The defendant's request for an out-of-town judge due to his media status was denied, with the court clarifying that such appointments are typically reserved for cases involving local lawyers to avoid perceived bias.

Gilbert Labine, a criminal lawyer, brought a summary application seeking an injunction against Brian Webster and Pino Demasi, who operate social media sites, alleging defamation and interference with the administration of justice.

The respondents, self-described citizen journalists, reported on court proceedings.

The application was dismissed on procedural grounds, as the court found it was not a proper case for a summary proceeding due to contested material facts, the need for discovery, and issues with admissible evidence.

The court noted that a regular action was the appropriate procedural path for a defamation claim seeking an injunction as primary relief.

No costs were awarded.