2 total
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the defamation action was not a SLAPP and the plaintiff met the burden under section 137.1.
A lawyer and human rights advocate sued for defamation after a charitable organization published articles accusing him of supporting terrorists.
The plaintiff had met with the father of an alleged Palestinian terrorist, expressed sympathy for the father whose home was demolished, and posted about the matter on social media.
The defendant moved to dismiss the action as a SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.
The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the defendant had valid defences of fair comment, justification, and qualified privilege.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in applying the wrong legal standard and that the plaintiff had met his burden under section 137.1(4)(a)(ii) by showing a reasonable trier could conclude none of the defences would succeed.
The court also found the balancing test under section 137.1(4)(b) favoured the plaintiff.
Action for misfeasance in public office dismissed as OPA acted in good faith amending microFIT rules.
The plaintiff, a solar power installation company, sued the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) for misfeasance in public office.
The plaintiff alleged that the OPA unlawfully amended the microFIT Program rules without providing the required 90 days' notice, intentionally causing harm to the plaintiff's business.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the OPA did not engage in deliberate unlawful conduct or act with bad faith.
The court held that the OPA acted in good faith to balance ratepayer interests and implement Ministerial directives regarding renewable energy procurement.
Although the court assessed potential damages at $470,250, no liability was found.
