2 total
The court dismissed a union's anti-SLAPP motion against a hotel's defamation claim regarding a press release about Pride pins, finding evidence of malice.
The defendants, a union and its representatives, brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action initiated by the plaintiffs, a hotel and its parent company.
The defamation claim arose from a press release issued by the defendants alleging the hotel required employees to remove union Pride pins, implying a lack of support for the LGBTQ+ community.
The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiffs' defamation claim had substantial merit and no valid defences (justification, qualified privilege, fair/reasonable comment), particularly due to evidence of malice and the untruthful implication in the press release.
The court concluded that the public interest in allowing the defamation action to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression, and awarded partial indemnity costs of $75,000 to the plaintiffs.
Divisional Court upholds order allowing foreign defendant to redact irrelevant personal data to comply with GDPR.
The appellant appealed a case management judge's order permitting the foreign corporate respondent to redact irrelevant personal data from its documentary productions to comply with European and German privacy laws (GDPR and BDSG).
The Divisional Court upheld the redaction protocol, finding the motion judge had jurisdiction to craft a procedural compromise that balanced Ontario discovery obligations with international comity and foreign privacy laws.
However, the court granted the appeal solely to remove an unwarranted requirement that the respondent obtain leave before filing its affidavit of documents.
