Douglas W. Judson

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 defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss a defamation action commenced by a drag performer and a 2SLGBTQI organization.

The action arose from a Facebook post by the defendant that referred to the plaintiffs as 'groomers' in the context of a drag story-time event.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the expression did not relate to a matter of public interest, but rather perpetuated harmful myths and stereotypes about the 2SLGBTQI community.

The court further held that the defamation claim had substantial merit, the defence of fair comment had no real prospect of success, and the public interest in allowing the plaintiffs to defend their reputations outweighed any public interest in protecting the expression.

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.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim at trial, the successful defendants sought substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff conceded that substantial indemnity costs were warranted due to unsuccessful fraud allegations but disputed the quantum and whether the litigation administrator should be personally liable.

The court fixed costs at $45,000 for the Jolicouers and $55,000 for Debra.

The court ordered the litigation administrator to be personally liable for 67% of the costs, representing the portion incurred after the deceased's death when she continued the litigation for her own benefit, with the estate liable for the remaining 33%.

The applicant sought remedies under the Business Corporations Act after discovering the respondent co-director had forged his signature on pandemic relief loans and deposited fraudulent cheques, leaving the corporation in debt.

The respondent admitted to the forgeries.

The court granted judgment for the $35,000 the applicant paid to cover the overdraft, awarded $25,000 in punitive damages, set aside the forged loan agreements and personal guarantees, and awarded substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff estate administrator brought an action alleging that the deceased's daughter, acting as power of attorney, fraudulently transferred the deceased's farm properties to another daughter and son-in-law in 1997.

The court found no evidence of fraud or conspiracy, concluding that the deceased had authorized the transfers.

The court also held that any claim for the unpaid balance of the purchase price was barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendants' counterclaim regarding the severance of a joint tenancy was also dismissed.

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.