Gary S. Farb

The plaintiff brought a defamation action against the defendant, a municipal employee, for statements she made at a Business Improvement Area (BIA) annual general meeting regarding his eligibility to serve on the board.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the expression related to a matter of public interest, the defendant had valid defences including statutory immunity and qualified privilege, and the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the minimal harm suffered by the plaintiff.

On a summary judgment motion arising from an employee's terminal illness, leave of absence, and subsequent death after an asset sale, the court rejected claims of dismissal, constructive dismissal, bad faith termination, and exemplary damages.

The court held there was no act of termination by the employer and no basis for common law damages.

However, applying the Employment Standards Act and O. Reg. 288/01, the court concluded the contract of employment had been frustrated by illness before death.

The estate was therefore entitled to statutory termination pay and severance pay.

The tenant appealed an eviction order, arguing the Tribunal erred by failing to consider his drug addiction as a disability requiring accommodation under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court found that while the addiction was a disability, the tenant's operation of a crack house substantially interfered with other tenants' rights.

The court held that accommodating such behaviour would cause undue hardship to the landlord and other tenants, particularly since the tenant denied dealing drugs, making accommodation impossible.

The appeal was dismissed and the eviction order upheld.

The College of Chiropractors of Ontario appealed a decision of its Discipline Committee, which found that the respondent chiropractor did not commit acts of professional misconduct relating to allegations of sexual abuse.

The majority of the Discipline Committee had dismissed the allegations based on credibility findings, preferring the respondent's evidence over the complainant's due to inconsistencies in her testimony.

The Divisional Court found that the Discipline Committee's decision was reasonable and did not rely on improper stereotypes, emphasizing the deference owed to specialized tribunals on findings of fact and credibility.

The appeal was dismissed.

The College of Chiropractors of Ontario appealed a Discipline Committee decision that found the respondent chiropractor did not commit professional misconduct regarding allegations of sexual abuse.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Committee's majority decision unreasonable due to cumulative errors in assessing the complainant's credibility, reliance on stereotypes about sexual assault victims, and failure to consider relevant confirmatory evidence.

The matter was remitted for a rehearing before a new panel.