Gil Zvulony

This appeal concerned a defamation action where the motion judge struck out claims.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by taking an overly technical approach to pleadings, specifically regarding the pleading of special damages for one appellant and failing to grant leave to amend for the other appellants.

The appeal was allowed, the motion judge's order striking out claims was set aside, and the appellants were granted leave to file a further amended statement of claim.

The defendant, Xiao Yao Zi, brought a motion under Rule 21 to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim in a libel action, arguing it failed to disclose a cause of action because the defamatory article, in its certified English translation, did not identify the plaintiff, Yeung & Associates.

The plaintiff contended that despite the literal translation, the Chinese characters and accompanying images (photos of premises, website screenshots, social media posts) clearly identified them.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding it was not plain and obvious that the publication did not refer to the plaintiff, emphasizing that identification is a question of fact for trial and does not solely rely on literal translation.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to amend the pleadings to recast conspiracy allegations as malice within the libel claim and to clarify how the Chinese publication identified the plaintiff.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs brought an action for defamation and breach of a non-disclosure agreement regarding derogatory internet posts allegedly authored by the defendant under a pseudonym.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding multiple genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning the identity of the author and the credibility of the parties.

The court declined to use enhanced fact-finding powers, holding that a trial was necessary to fully appreciate the voluminous and conflicting evidence.

Additionally, the court awarded $11,860 in costs to a former defendant against whom the action had been discontinued.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's anti-SLAPP motion in a defamation action, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $61,000.

The court considered section 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act, which presumes no costs are awarded to a responding party unless appropriate in the circumstances.

The court found that the defendant's expression related to a matter of public interest and the motion was not frivolous or brought for a strategic purpose.

Consequently, the plaintiff failed to rebut the statutory presumption, and no costs were ordered.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation claim.

The plaintiff, a real estate agent, sued the defendant over articles and comments posted on WeChat regarding the defendant's dissatisfaction with the plaintiff's services during a 2014 home purchase.

The court found that while the expression related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff established that her claim had substantial merit and that there were grounds to believe the defendant had no valid defence.

Furthermore, the court held that the harm suffered by the plaintiff outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendant's expression.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellants, a geneticist and his corporation, appealed a trial judgment dismissing their defamation action against the respondents for publishing an article in New Scientist magazine criticizing their prenatal paternity test as unreliable.

The trial judge found the respondents established the defences of justification, fair comment, responsible communication, and qualified privilege.

On appeal, the appellants abandoned their substantive grounds and raised a new allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias based on the trial judge's conduct and reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the bias allegation was raised tactically and lacked merit.

The applicant, Monika Caryk, sought a Norwich Order compelling the respondent, Melinda Karlsson, to disclose information relevant to allegations that Caryk engaged in cyberbullying of Karlsson.

Caryk's reputation was allegedly damaged by media reports attributing online posts to her, stemming from Karlsson's now-expired peace bond application.

The court applied the five-part test for a Norwich Order, finding that Caryk failed to establish a tenable cause of action, that Karlsson was the only practicable source of the information, or that the interests of justice favored granting the order.

The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

The appellants (Fortress and its principals) appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their defamation and breach of contract claims against the respondent, Ben Rabidoux, under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The motion judge found that Rabidoux's tweets related to matters of public interest and that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the harm caused was sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting freedom of expression.

The appellants also sought leave to appeal the costs award on a full indemnity basis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, upheld the full indemnity costs award, and varied the costs order only to add HST.

The defendant, Ben Rabidoux, brought a motion to dismiss a defamation and breach of contract action initiated by the plaintiffs, Fortress Real Developments Inc., Fortress Real Capital Inc., Jawad Rathore, and Vince Petrozza.

The motion was brought under Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation, s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, alleging the action was a "gag proceeding" arising from expressions relating to matters of public interest.

The court found that Rabidoux's tweets, concerning OSC violations, syndicated mortgages, and condo developments related to the plaintiffs' business, constituted matters of public interest.

The burden then shifted to the plaintiffs to demonstrate substantial merit, no valid defence, and sufficiently serious harm outweighing the public interest in protecting expression.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to provide credible and compelling evidence of specific damages, noting that other public comments and regulatory issues were more likely sources of reputational harm.

Consequently, the action against Rabidoux was dismissed.

The court declined to award punitive damages due to lack of quantification submissions.

Following a defamation trial where the plaintiff was awarded $10,000 in general damages, both parties sought costs.

The plaintiffs claimed over $417,000 in substantial indemnity costs, while the defendant sought over $165,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The court noted the exorbitant legal fees incurred by both sides, totaling nearly $800,000, and emphasized the principle of proportionality.

Considering the plaintiff's modest success, the failure to move the action to the simplified procedure, and the defendant's mixed success in defending the claims, the court concluded that the outcome was close to a draw.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.