4 total
Administrative dismissal for delay set aside due to strong merits of the claim and lack of prejudice.
The plaintiffs, initially self-represented by a solicitor acting for himself and his company, failed to respond to a Status Notice, resulting in an administrative dismissal of their action for unpaid loans.
The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside the dismissal order.
The court applied the holistic test for setting aside a Registrar's dismissal, finding that despite the plaintiffs' procedural failures and delay, the merits of the action (unpaid loans acknowledged by the defendants) and the lack of prejudice to the defendants justified setting aside the order.
The court also vacated a previous security for costs order and awarded costs to the plaintiffs.
Substantial indemnity costs awarded after defamation findings involving unfounded allegations of fraud.
Following a successful defamation action in which the defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
The defamatory statements alleged dishonesty, fraud, and untrustworthiness and were disseminated by email to numerous recipients.
The court held that substantial indemnity costs were appropriate where unfounded allegations of fraud and dishonesty seriously prejudicial to reputation were advanced and maintained in pleadings.
However, the court found the amount claimed excessive given modest damages and potential duplication of work between senior and junior counsel.
Costs were fixed at a fair and reasonable all‑inclusive amount.
Summary judgment granted for defamatory email accusing business of dishonesty.
The plaintiff furniture retailer brought a motion for summary judgment in a defamation action arising from an email circulated by the defendant accusing the business of dishonesty and urging recipients to avoid it.
The defendant raised the defence of fair comment and advanced a counterclaim for slander based on communications made by the plaintiff to her employer and father.
The court held that the email was defamatory and that the defence of fair comment was unavailable because the statements were not on a matter of public interest, were not based on proven facts, and were motivated by malice.
The court concluded that there were no genuine issues requiring a trial and that summary judgment was appropriate.
Judgment was granted for the plaintiff with damages fixed at $15,000 and the defendant’s counterclaim dismissed.
Appeal of summary judgment dismissed; medical malpractice claim lacked expert evidence and had no chance of success.
The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his medical malpractice claim against a hospital and two doctors for failing to diagnose a concussion.
The motions judge had dismissed the action under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The appellant argued that Rule 20 does not apply in Small Claims Court, relying on recent appellate jurisprudence.
The Divisional Court agreed that Rule 12.02 of the Small Claims Court Rules was the correct provision, but upheld the dismissal because the appellant had no expert evidence on the standard of care and the claim had no meaningful chance of success, rendering it a waste of time.
