Edward Zhou

The appellant, a former employee, appealed the dismissal of his anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and sought leave to appeal a $50,000 costs award.

The appellant had made threats to communicate damaging information to the respondent's clients and the Ministry of Transportation if unpaid wage claims were not satisfied.

The motion judge found that the appellant's communications were fundamentally about his employment dispute rather than matters of public interest, and that the respondent would easily prove the statements were false and harmful.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's analysis under s. 137.1(3) or s. 137.1(4)(b), and affirmed the costs award.

The plaintiff, Tianyu Li, brought a motion for summary judgment in an oppression action under the Ontario and Canada Business Corporations Acts, seeking $760,000 against the defendants, who were involved in the operation and sale of two supermarkets.

The court found that there were significant factual disputes, a voluminous record, and a lack of expert evidence, making the matter unsuitable for summary judgment.

The motion was dismissed and the action, along with the defendants’ counterclaim, was ordered to proceed to trial.

This costs endorsement follows an unsuccessful anti-SLAPP motion brought by the defendant, a former employee, who had made damaging and unsubstantiated allegations against the plaintiff, his former employer.

The court found the defendant's campaign of correspondence to be extortionate and awarded the plaintiff $50,000 in costs, exercising discretion under the Courts of Justice Act.

The court dismissed an anti-SLAPP motion brought by Zhou Chen, a former employee of Diverse Transportation, who had sent disparaging messages to Diverse’s customers linking payment demands to allegations of misconduct.

The court found that Chen’s communications were not genuinely in the public interest but were instead a façade for a private employment dispute and debt collection.

The decision clarifies the threshold for public interest under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and affirms that anti-SLAPP protections do not extend to private disputes disguised as matters of public concern.

The plaintiff, Contrans Tank Group GP Inc., brought a defamation action against its former employee, Zhuo Chen.

Chen brought an anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action, claiming his expressions related to public interest matters (alleged systemic underpayment and discrimination against immigrant drivers).

Contrans attempted to discontinue the action without costs shortly before the motion hearing.

The court found that the notice of discontinuance was ineffective due to the statutory stay imposed by s. 137.1(5) of the Act, which prohibits "any further step in the proceeding" once an anti-SLAPP motion is made.

The court then proceeded to hear the anti-SLAPP motion on its merits, finding that Chen's communications were on a matter of public interest.

Contrans failed to show grounds to believe its defamation claim had substantial merit or that Chen had no valid defence (specifically, truth/justification).

The court also found that Contrans brought the action in bad faith or for an improper purpose, aiming to silence and intimidate the defendant.

The action was dismissed, and Chen was awarded $5,000 in damages and full indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, Ting Hei To, brought a motion for summary judgment against the personal defendant, Nelson Chi Wan Chan, the sole director of the corporate defendant, Psonic Inc. Psonic Inc. had entered bankruptcy.

The plaintiff sought judgment based on an alleged personal guarantee by Mr. Chan, piercing the corporate veil, and fraudulent misrepresentations made by Mr. Chan.

The court dismissed the claim based on the personal guarantee due to a lack of consideration and declined to pierce the corporate veil, finding insufficient evidence on the record.

However, the court granted partial summary judgment against Mr. Chan for funds obtained through fraudulent misrepresentations related to development charges, grading, and insurance, as these funds were paid to and retained by Mr. Chan personally.

This motion addressed whether a party (Yan Jun Li) could examine other parties (Jiapeng Zhou and Lihui Gu) who had not sworn affidavits in support of a consolidation motion.

The court clarified that the right to examine a witness under Rule 39.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is not automatic and requires demonstrating that the evidence sought is relevant, obtainable from the witness, and necessary for the motion.

The court found that the questions Li sought to ask, pertaining to common questions of fact or law or transactional nexus for consolidation, were matters of legal argument based on pleadings, not factual evidence from the parties.

Consequently, the Notices of Examination served on Jiapeng Zhou and Lihui Gu were quashed.

The court also granted an indulgence to Li's counsel to cross-examine Caitlyn Reid, despite previous non-compliance with the timetable.

Costs were awarded to Zhou and Gu.