Gavin Henry Howes Leitch

The Township of Clearview appealed a motion decision that largely dismissed its anti-SLAPP application against an action for defamation, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty brought by the respondents.

The action stemmed from the Township posting resident letters on its website that contained negative comments about the respondents' farming practices and proposed micro-brewery.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal regarding the defamation claim, finding that the motion judge erred in his analysis of the qualified privilege and indemnity defences, which had a real prospect of success.

The negligence claim dismissal was not appealed.

The breach of fiduciary duty claim dismissal was upheld.

The defendant Township brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for defamation, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The action arose after the Township posted unsolicited, unvetted, and allegedly defamatory public comments about the plaintiffs' proposed farm brewery on its website.

The court found the breach of fiduciary duty claim did not arise from an expression and could proceed.

The negligence claim was dismissed for lacking substantial merit.

The defamation claim was allowed to proceed, as the court found it had substantial merit, the Township's defences lacked a real prospect of success, and the public interest in allowing the claim to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the unvetted, vitriolic public comments.

The applicant sought costs of $22,655.75 against the Town following a successful appeal of the Town's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit a bed and breakfast.

The applicant alleged the Town engaged in unreasonable conduct by failing to present evidence and knowingly presenting misleading evidence regarding a restrictive covenant.

The Tribunal dismissed the costs motion, finding the hearing was a typical contested matter, the Town's reliance on its expert was appropriate, and the conduct did not meet the threshold for a costs award.

The applicant, having successfully appealed the Town's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a bed and breakfast, sought costs of $1,465.61 against a self-represented party, John Kutcy.

The applicant alleged that Kutcy's conduct leading up to and during the hearing was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and in bad faith.

The Tribunal reviewed the allegations, including claims of delay, failure to follow procedural orders, and distracting behaviour during the video hearing.

The Tribunal found that Kutcy's conduct did not meet the high threshold required for a costs award under Rule 23 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, characterizing the proceeding as a typical contested hearing.

The request for costs was dismissed.

The applicant successfully appealed the Town's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a bed and breakfast.

Following the appeal, the applicant brought a motion for costs of $18,978.09, alleging the Town's conduct during the municipal planning process was unreasonable and designed to obstruct the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, holding that its jurisdiction to award costs under Rule 23 is limited to conduct occurring during the Tribunal proceeding itself, not the preceding municipal planning process.

The defendants brought a preliminary motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel for an alleged conflict of interest and to amend their Statement of Defence to plead the Limitations Act.

The court allowed the amendment to the pleadings, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff at this early stage.

However, the court dismissed the request to remove counsel, finding no evidence that counsel acquired confidential information relevant to the current litigation during a prior, unrelated retainer.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding damages to the respondent landlord for breach of commercial leases.

The appellants argued the deputy judge erred in admitting business records, assessing credibility, denying costs to a successful co-defendant, and calculating damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the lower court's evidentiary rulings, credibility findings, discretionary costs decision, or damages calculation.