Graeme Mew

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) sued Quebecor Media Inc., Sun Media Corporation, TVA Group Inc., Jerry Agar, and Avi Benlolo for defamation.

The claim arose from statements published in print and broadcast media in 2014, alleging that CUPW and its members were terrorist sympathizers and supported Hamas, following a demonstration where CUPW flags were seen near a Hamas flag.

The court addressed CUPW's standing as an unincorporated association to sue for defamation, finding it had standing.

The court then examined the defamatory meaning of the impugned statements and the defendants' defences of truth, fair comment, responsible communication, and statutory privilege.

The court found that the defendants successfully established the defence of fair comment, as their opinions were honestly held and based on a sufficient factual substratum, and also discharged their duty of responsible communication and statutory privilege.

The action was dismissed with costs.

This endorsement addresses a last-minute motion by counsel, Clinton Culic, to be removed as lawyer of record for the respondent, Lee Aubin, which necessitated an adjournment of the main application.

The court granted the adjournment, ordered the respondent, Ms. Aubin, to pay $7,500 in costs thrown away to the applicant, BMO Trust Company.

The court also directed Mr. Culic to appear at a later date to show cause why he should not be personally liable for reimbursing Ms. Aubin for these costs due to his conduct in delaying the motion to withdraw.

The plaintiff suffered a severe asthma attack and was admitted to the hospital.

The defendant internist assumed care but failed to promptly consult an intensive care specialist or arrange for timely intubation by an experienced clinician.

The plaintiff was eventually intubated by a respiratory therapist after multiple attempts and suffered a hypoxic brain injury, rendering her an incomplete quadriplegic.

The court found the defendant breached the standard of care by failing to consult a specialist sooner, delaying the decision to intubate, and failing to ensure the most experienced clinician performed the procedure.

The court also found that these breaches caused the plaintiff's brain injury.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiffs.

Michael Renzi appealed his convictions for criminal harassment, breach of undertaking, and breach of probation, and the imposed sentence.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding an alibi photograph and reached an unreasonable verdict given the totality of evidence, including phone and salon records.

The court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence and that the trial judge's verdict was reasonable, having carefully considered all evidence and credibility.

The sentence appeal, alleging the sentence was harsh and excessive, was also largely dismissed, though a probation condition regarding contact with the appellant's daughter was varied by consent to allow contact with her written and revocable consent.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a previous decision where the applicant's costs were directed to be payable from the Estate.

The applicant, the Estate Trustee, sought full indemnity costs under the Trustee Act, arguing the litigation was necessary for estate administration.

The respondent opposed, claiming the dispute was personal.

The court found the costs claimed by the applicant to be reasonable and ordered full indemnity costs of $10,814.50 to be paid out of the Estate, affirming the estate trustee's right to indemnification for reasonably incurred legal expenses.

This application concerned the administration of the Estate of Gary Frederick Sheffield.

The Estate Trustee, Katherine Markolefas, sought to sell the deceased's property, which was occupied by the respondent, Bradley Frederick Sheffield, a beneficiary.

The respondent argued he had a vested right to possession of the property.

The court ruled that the Estate Trustee had the discretion to sell the property to give effect to the gift, and ordered the respondent to vacate within 60 days and return any removed estate assets.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion for partial default judgment against the defendant concerning the beneficial ownership of a residential property.

The plaintiff had provided all funds for the property's acquisition and maintenance, with legal title held by the defendant for mortgage purposes.

The defendant subsequently refused to transfer title and encumbered the property with an undisclosed line of credit.

The court, noting the defendant's default, found a resulting trust in favour of the plaintiff, declaring the plaintiff the sole beneficial owner and ordering the vesting of title.

Issues of damages and costs were adjourned.

This endorsement addresses costs arising from multiple motions and applications.

Andrew Clifford Miracle's applications (vexatious litigant, security for costs, bankruptcy motion) were dismissed.

Glenn Bogue's motions (solicitors' lien, summary judgment) were largely successful.

Rod Gram's summary judgment motion was dismissed, but his motion to dismiss Miracle's counterclaim was granted.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to Glenn Bogue for his successful motions and to the Receiver for an abandoned motion by Miracle.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding Miracle's conduct not egregious enough, and reserved costs between Gram and Miracle.

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment on an unliquidated claim against the defendant, her former spouse, for damages resulting from his physical and psychological abuse during their marriage.

The defendant was noted in default and did not participate in the litigation.

The court assessed general damages, aggravated damages, and damages for lost earning capacity, along with an OHIP subrogated claim and pre-judgment interest.

The court awarded the plaintiff $75,000 for general damages, $25,000 for aggravated damages, and $15,000 for loss of earning capacity, noting the evolving understanding of intimate partner violence in assessing aggravated damages.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the defendant's successful motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The defendant sought $1,000 in costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The self-represented plaintiff argued he should be relieved of costs as a "public interest litigant." The court found that the plaintiff's claim, which sought minimal damages for defamation against a judge and stemmed from private family law disputes, did not qualify as genuine public interest litigation.

Consequently, the court applied the usual rule that costs follow the event and ordered the plaintiff to pay $1,000 in costs to the defendant.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an assessment of the plaintiff, Ruth Campbell, to determine her capacity to testify at trial due to advancing dementia, and for disclosure of a capacity assessment report obtained by the plaintiffs.

The court granted the assessment for the purpose of determining her ability to testify, but strictly limited the use of the resulting report to a voir dire on her testimonial capacity, prohibiting its use for substantive issues of liability or damages.

The court also ruled that the plaintiffs' capacity assessment report, obtained to determine the need for a litigation guardian, was protected by solicitor-client and litigation privilege and not subject to disclosure.

This is an appeal of a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg.

The appellant alleged multiple Charter breaches, including an invalid Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand due to the officer not having the device present, delays in informing and facilitating the right to counsel, and a privacy breach during washroom use at the police station.

The appeal court, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Breault, found the ASD demand invalid, leading to cascading Charter breaches (sections 8, 9, 10(b)).

Despite these breaches, which were deemed unintentional and situational, the court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the highly reliable breathalyzer evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, given the strong societal interest in prosecuting impaired driving.

The plaintiff, Adan McIntosh, sued Justice Sharon Shore for defamation, alleging she disseminated defamatory remarks to judicial colleagues and included them in a Case History Report with intent to influence other judges.

Justice Shore moved to strike the statement of claim under Rules 21.01(1)(a) and (b) and 25.11(c), arguing judicial immunity and absolute privilege.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was certain to fail due to Justice Shore's unanswerable defence of judicial immunity, as her actions were within her judicial capacity, even if an error of judgment.

The court also found that absolute privilege applied as the comments were directly connected to judicial proceedings.

The motion to strike was granted without leave to amend.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment in his wrongful dismissal action against his former employers after 22 years of service.

The court determined the reasonable notice period, bonus entitlement, benefits compensation, and vacation pay, and assessed the plaintiff's mitigation efforts.

The court found a 24-month notice period appropriate, awarded bonuses based on actual corporate performance during the notice period, and set a value for lost benefits.

It clarified that discretionary bonuses, while compensable as part of damages, do not constitute "wages" for statutory vacation pay purposes.

The court dismissed the defendants' argument regarding the plaintiff's failure to mitigate, finding his efforts reasonable.

In this personal injury action, the defendants sought production of the complete and unredacted file of the Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington (FCS) concerning the plaintiffs from 2014 to present.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing it was a fishing expedition and that the utility of the records would be tangential.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the burden for production of such highly intrusive records is high, and the prejudicial effect of disclosure greatly outweighed any potential benefit to the defendants, especially given that the information sought was likely of tangential relevance.

The plaintiff commenced an action against several lawyers who had represented respondents in his previous, unsuccessful application for judicial review.

The plaintiff alleged the lawyers engaged in deceitful tactics and sought damages.

One of the defendants requested the action be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the action was a collateral attack on the previous decision and that the allegations against opposing counsel disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The action was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.

The plaintiff commenced an action against 24 defendants, including police officers, Crown attorneys, defence lawyers, and judicial officers, alleging false arrest, malicious prosecution, and other wrongs arising from his alleged work as a police agent.

The court reviewed the statement of claim under the summary procedure in Rule 2.1.01.

Finding that the claims against judicial officers were barred by absolute immunity and claims against several other justice system participants were legally untenable, the court struck those claims without leave to amend.

The balance of the statement of claim was struck with leave to deliver a fresh as amended statement of claim complying with the rules of pleading.

An application for a certificate of appointment as estate trustee by William J. F. Bishop, a disbarred lawyer, was dismissed.

Despite the support of the deceased's heirs, the court exercised its inherent discretion to refuse the appointment.

The court found that Bishop's past professional misconduct involving dishonest and fraudulent conduct, coupled with concerns about his potential engagement in unauthorized legal practice related to the estate, undermined the public interest in maintaining confidence in the administration of justice and the regulation of the legal profession.

Ahmad Hasan was charged with two counts of criminal harassment and three counts of breach of probation stemming from his public Facebook postings targeting a detective and a lawyer involved in his previous criminal cases, and for breaching a publication ban.

The court found that Hasan's conduct, including seeking personal information about the complainants and making derogatory remarks, constituted threatening and harassing behaviour.

The complainants' fears for their safety were deemed objectively reasonable given the context of Hasan's prior convictions and obsessive conduct.

The court found Hasan guilty on all five charges.

The defendant, R.W., was convicted of sexually assaulting D.N. and H.W., and touching them while under 16.

The offences occurred on the same day in 2018.

H.W. was the defendant's niece, 14 years old, and D.N. was a friend.

The Crown sought a 5-year imprisonment, while the defence proposed 3-4 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victims' age, abuse of trust (for H.W.), and the defendant's alcohol issues and prior impaired driving convictions.

Mitigating factors included no prior history of sexual violence and a supportive relationship.

Applying sentencing principles, particularly denunciation and deterrence for child abuse, and guided by R. v. Friesen and R. v. Poulsen, the court imposed a total sentence of four years' imprisonment, with concurrent terms for each victim served consecutively.

Ancillary orders included a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order (adjusted from lifetime due to R. v. Ndhlovu), a mandatory DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a non-communication order.