Emma K. Romano

The plaintiff, a municipal politician, sued two journalists for unlawful means conspiracy, alleging they conspired with confidential CSIS sources to illegally leak and publish classified information portraying him as an agent of the Chinese government.

The journalists brought a motion to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act (s. 137.1).

The court granted the motion, finding that the articles related to matters of public interest (foreign interference).

The court held that the plaintiff failed to show the conspiracy claim had substantial merit, as there was no evidence the journalists agreed to anything beyond protecting their sources' identities, nor did they engage in unlawful conduct.

Furthermore, the public interest in protecting investigative journalism and confidential sources on matters of national security outweighed the harm suffered by the plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Windrift Adventures Incorporated’s appeal from the dismissal of its defamation action under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s conclusion that the action lacked substantial merit and that the harm suffered was not sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the respondents’ expression.

The court also rejected the appellant’s argument that a finding of “abuse” is required for dismissal under s. 137.1, clarifying that the test remains as set out in Pointes Protection Association.

The defendants, including CTV and several journalists, brought a motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action arising from a W5 investigative report on dog sledding operations.

The court granted the motion, finding that the expression related to a matter of public interest.

The plaintiff failed to establish that its defamation claim had substantial merit, as the impugned broadcasts did not identify the plaintiff or lacked essential elements of defamation.

Furthermore, the plaintiff could not show that the defendants lacked valid defences of justification, fair comment, and responsible communication, nor that the harm suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The appellants, a newspaper publisher and his company, appealed the dismissal of their defamation and other tort claims against city councillors, school trustees, and media entities under Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

The appellants had published articles critical of the Toronto Catholic District School Board's LGBTQ2S+ policies, using derogatory language.

The respondents, in turn, took action to have the City of Toronto cease advertising in the appellants' newspaper, alleging the articles promoted homophobia and transphobia.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the respondents' expressions related to a matter of public interest and that the appellants failed to show their claims had substantial merit or that the respondents had no valid defence (specifically, fair comment).

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that the fair comment defence was viable, and that the appellants' constitutional arguments regarding freedom of expression and religious protection were without merit.

The appeal on costs was also dismissed.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiffs' defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the moving parties (defendants) sought full indemnity costs totalling over $1.1 million.

The court awarded full indemnity costs as requested, subject to a reduction for the costs of non-active counsel, clerks, or students.

The court also apportioned liability, finding one plaintiff jointly and severally liable only for costs related to the OMA dispute, while the other plaintiff was solely liable for costs related to the COVID-19 dispute.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiffs' defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the moving party defendants sought their costs.

The plaintiffs argued that the court should apply the appropriateness exception under s. 137.1(7) to award partial indemnity costs instead of the presumptive full indemnity costs.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding no basis to depart from the full indemnity presumption, and awarded the defendants their costs on a full indemnity basis (and substantial indemnity for one defendant on a pro bono retainer), totaling over $383,000.

The plaintiffs, a newspaper publisher and his company, brought an action for defamation, misfeasance in public office, inducing breach of contract, and wrongful interference with economic relations against several city councillors, school board trustees, and a media company.

The action arose from statements made by the defendants criticizing articles published by the plaintiffs as homophobic and transphobic, and advocating for the cessation of city advertising in the plaintiffs' newspaper.

The defendants brought motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The court granted the motions, finding that the defendants' expressions related to matters of public interest.

While the defamation claim had substantial merit, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the other claims had merit, and failed to show that the defendants had no valid defences, including fair comment, qualified privilege, and responsible communication.

Furthermore, the court found that the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression outweighed any harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs, two physicians, brought a $12 million defamation action against over 20 defendants, including other physicians, journalists, and media organizations.

The claims arose from two main disputes: an internal Ontario Medical Association (OMA) dispute and public criticism of the plaintiffs' controversial tweets regarding COVID-19, in which they opposed vaccines and lockdowns and promoted hydroxychloroquine.

The defendants brought anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that the defendants' expressions related to matters of public interest and that the plaintiffs failed to show their claims had substantial merit or that the defendants lacked valid defences, such as fair comment and qualified privilege.

The court also found that the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions far outweighed any harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The action was dismissed against all defendants.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement in a defamation action.

The plaintiffs argued that the settlement required the defendants to post an apology on their homepage or make it searchable on their internal search facility, rather than just on a dedicated URL.

The court found the terms of the settlement clear and unambiguous, noting that the defendants had complied by posting the apology on a dedicated URL as agreed.

The court granted the motion, enforced the settlement, and dismissed the plaintiffs' actions.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim under rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs, a home builder and its principal, alleged various torts and statutory breaches against Tarion Warranty Corporation, several municipalities, CTV News, and a public health authority, claiming hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

The court found the 40-page statement of claim to be unwieldy, repetitive, and deficient in pleading the necessary material facts for the alleged causes of action.

The court struck the statement of claim in its entirety, dismissing claims based on criminal statutes, the Competition Act, the Security of Information Act, intentional interference with economic relations, discrimination, and harassment without leave to amend.

However, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to move for an order permitting them to deliver a fresh statement of claim restricted to specific causes of action, including injurious falsehood, inducing breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and negligence, provided they can properly plead the required material facts.

The plaintiffs sued airlines for significant losses, including the loss of a traditional title and the death of their daughter, after Lawrence Mpamugo was denied entry to the United States, preventing them from taking their booked flights to Nigeria.

Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc. moved to dismiss the claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court found that the claims in contract and negligence were not supported by law, as airlines are not liable for passengers' immigration issues, and the Montreal Convention limits liability to damages occasioned by delay in carriage, not denial of entry.

The court dismissed the claims against Delta, allowing only a potential claim for a refund of unused tickets to be transferred to Small Claims Court.

The plaintiff, Core Insight Strategies Inc., brought a motion to amend its statement of claim to add several parties, including Dan Baril as a plaintiff and Erin Kelly, Kenton White, and Ken Rubin as defendants.

Ken Rubin opposed his addition, arguing that the proposed claims of defamation and intentional interference with economic relations, based on his freedom of information requests, were unmeritorious and constituted a "gag proceeding" under Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Master granted the motion to add the other parties but dismissed the motion to add Ken Rubin, finding that his FOI requests could not be construed as specific allegations of wrongdoing and that allowing such claims would unduly prejudice the exercise of freedom of information rights and expression.

The plaintiff, Henry Lotin, brought two defamation actions against his brother-in-law Tomas Gregor and sister-in-law Andrea Gregor, seeking summary judgment, non-compensatory general damages, and an injunction.

The defendants also sought summary judgment.

The court dismissed the action against Tomas Gregor, finding that the alleged defamatory statements were not proven.

However, the court granted summary judgment in favour of Lotin against Andrea Gregor for two defamatory statements: one accusing Lotin of stealing from Agnes in a telephone conversation with Gabor, and another in a text message to Peter stating Lotin "ransacked" Agnes' condominium and "took things." Lotin was awarded $2,000 in general damages against Andrea Gregor.

The request for a permanent injunction was denied, as the court was not satisfied there was a likelihood of continued defamation.