3 total
The court granted the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' libel action arising from a lawyer's letter sent during a proxy contest.
An anti-SLAPP motion brought by directors of MediPharm Labs Corp. to dismiss a libel action arising from a lawyer's letter sent during a proxy contest.
The letter, authored by counsel and approved by the defendants, raised concerns about the plaintiffs' solicitation activities, potential securities law violations, and market manipulation.
The court found the expression related to matters of public interest, the plaintiffs failed to establish substantial merit to their claim, and the defendants had valid defences including qualified privilege, fair comment, responsible communication, and truth.
The motion was granted and the claim dismissed.
School board lacks statutory authority to disband a parent school council or invalidate its elections.
The applicants, parents elected to a school council, brought an application for judicial review after the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) disbanded the council and ordered a new election due to a procedural irregularity.
The Divisional Court held that the TDSB lacked the statutory authority under the Education Act and O. Reg. 612/00 to disband a school council or review its elections.
The court granted a declaration that the TDSB's decision was made without jurisdiction, but declined to grant further remedies as the school year had already ended.
The court upheld an order for specific performance of a real estate agreement, finding the sellers could not rely on their own conveyancing defaults to terminate the transaction.
This is an appeal of a summary judgment order for specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) of a cottage property.
The sellers (appellants) asserted the APS had terminated, refusing to close.
The buyers (respondents) sued and obtained specific performance.
The appellants argued the APS terminated on November 5, 2020, due to a consent to sever condition, or on December 22, 2020, due to a "finality clause" and Planning Act non-compliance.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings that the severance condition was satisfied or waived by the sellers' lawyer's representations and the sellers' subsequent conduct.
The court also upheld that the sellers could not rely on the "finality clause" as they were in breach of their obligation to diligently obtain necessary consents under the Planning Act.
The transaction had already closed, and the property transferred to the buyers.
