Howard Winkler

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiffs' defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the moving parties (defendants) sought full indemnity costs totalling over $1.1 million.

The court awarded full indemnity costs as requested, subject to a reduction for the costs of non-active counsel, clerks, or students.

The court also apportioned liability, finding one plaintiff jointly and severally liable only for costs related to the OMA dispute, while the other plaintiff was solely liable for costs related to the COVID-19 dispute.

The plaintiffs, two physicians, brought a $12 million defamation action against over 20 defendants, including other physicians, journalists, and media organizations.

The claims arose from two main disputes: an internal Ontario Medical Association (OMA) dispute and public criticism of the plaintiffs' controversial tweets regarding COVID-19, in which they opposed vaccines and lockdowns and promoted hydroxychloroquine.

The defendants brought anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that the defendants' expressions related to matters of public interest and that the plaintiffs failed to show their claims had substantial merit or that the defendants lacked valid defences, such as fair comment and qualified privilege.

The court also found that the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions far outweighed any harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The action was dismissed against all defendants.

The defendant brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action arising from a tweet about the plaintiff media outlet.

The court found the tweet related to a matter of public interest.

While the plaintiff established a real prospect of success on the merits and that the defences of fair comment and justification might not succeed, it failed to demonstrate the existence of harm resulting from the tweet.

The court concluded the public interest in continuing the action did not outweigh the public interest in protecting the defendant's freedom of expression.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant.

Following a trial decision awarding equitable compensation to the plaintiff, the parties disputed the calculation of damages.

The court resolved issues regarding the proportionality of property taxes, mortgage payments, and rent receipts to be deducted from the plaintiff's award.

The court also determined the appropriate method for calculating pre-judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act, rejecting both parties' overly complicated approaches.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $4,976,925.32.