James F. Diamond

The plaintiff, Patrick Ojo, brought a motion for summary judgment against his former employer, Crystal Claire Cosmetics Inc., regarding his termination without cause.

The key issues were the enforceability of the employment agreement's termination clause, the reasonable notice period if unenforceable, mitigation of damages, and entitlement to a pro-rated bonus.

The court found the termination clause unenforceable due to non-compliance with the Employment Standards Act, 2000, specifically regarding "just cause for summary dismissal" and continuation of benefits.

The court awarded the plaintiff three months' common law reasonable notice and found he had adequately mitigated his damages.

However, the claim for a pro-rated bonus was dismissed due to lack of contractual entitlement and insufficient evidence.

Al Jazeera Media Network brought a motion under section 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action commenced by Rebel News Network Ltd. as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

Rebel News alleged three defamatory statements in an internet article and YouTube video published by Al Jazeera.

The court found that Al Jazeera satisfied its initial burden that the proceeding arose from an expression relating to a matter of public interest.

The burden then shifted to Rebel News to show substantial merit, no valid defence, and that the harm suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The court found Rebel News established substantial merit for its defamation claim.

However, Rebel News failed to show that Al Jazeera had no valid defence, specifically regarding the defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest, as the record raised credibility issues precluding a "deep dive" into the evidence at this stage.

Furthermore, Rebel News failed to provide specific evidence of harm and causation, leading the court to conclude that the public interest in free expression and public debate outweighed the public interest in permitting the action to continue.

Consequently, Al Jazeera's motion was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, Ezra Levant and Rebel News Network Ltd., commenced a defamation action against Brendan Demelle and The Narwhal News Society.

Demelle brought a motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The court found that Demelle's expression related to a matter of public interest.

While the plaintiffs established grounds to believe their defamation claim had substantial merit and that Demelle had no valid defences (justification, fair comment, responsible communication), they failed to provide sufficient evidence of specific harm suffered as a direct result of Demelle's publication.

Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' action, as they did not clear the threshold of showing harm and causation required for the public interest in continuing the proceeding to outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression.

The plaintiff pharmaceutical manufacturer sued the corporate defendants and their sole director, a pharmacist, alleging unauthorized 'vial-splitting' of a specialty ophthalmic drug.

The individual defendant moved to strike the claims against him personally, arguing they duplicated the claims against the corporate defendants.

The court struck the intentional tort claims but allowed the negligence and unjust enrichment claims to proceed, finding it possible the individual acted in his personal capacity as a pharmacist.

The plaintiff also successfully moved to strike a paragraph in the statement of defence that referenced the contents of its complaint to the Ontario College of Pharmacists, as such contents are inadmissible under section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision permitting the respondent mother to relocate with their child to Mongolia.

The trial judge had found that the mother's improved life in Mongolia would benefit the child.

On appeal, the court held that the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by focusing almost exclusively on the mother's reasons for moving, without sufficient admissible evidence demonstrating how the relocation would be in the child's best interests.

The appeal was allowed, the relocation order was set aside, and the mother's cross-appeal regarding access was dismissed as moot.

The applicant father sought to relocate with the two children from Toronto to Lindsay, Ontario.

The respondent mother opposed the move and brought multiple motions to adjourn the bifurcated trial, citing unsupported medical issues.

The court dismissed the adjournment requests and proceeded with the trial.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz framework, the court found that the high-conflict environment was primarily driven by the mother and that the children desired the move.

The court concluded it was in the children's best interests to relocate to Lindsay with the father, and ordered a specified parenting schedule to ensure maximum contact with the mother.

The applicant brought a motion seeking the release of 50% of the net sale proceeds from a jointly owned property, with a portion to be paid to the respondent for child support arrears.

The respondent opposed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction due to a mediation/arbitration clause in their prior agreement, and claiming damages for the applicant's alleged misconduct regarding the property sale.

The court found the respondent had waived the arbitration clause by actively participating in the litigation.

The court ordered the release of $604,500.00 to the applicant, less $19,200.00 for child support arrears, with the balance remaining in trust.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' four children attend school for in-person learning and that parenting transitions take place at the school.

The respondent father, a medical doctor, opposed in-person learning due to COVID-19 risks and the children's alleged history of respiratory issues.

Applying the Zinati factors, the court found no compelling medical evidence that the children were at increased risk and concluded that the benefits of in-person learning, including structure and peer interaction, outweighed the risks.

The court ordered the children to attend school in-person and requested further submissions on the issue of parenting transitions.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside ten previous court orders, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because he was not properly served under the Hague Service Convention.

The applicant brought a cross-motion seeking to refuse the respondent an audience because he remained in continuous breach of those orders.

The court held that a litigant cannot ignore court orders and still demand an audience.

The court directed that the respondent must first bring a motion to stay the impugned orders; if successful, he may proceed with his jurisdiction motion, but if unsuccessful, he will be refused an audience until he complies.

The parties were divorced in Connecticut, where a final order dealt with custody and child support.

The father subsequently obtained an order from the Connecticut court permitting him to relocate with the children to Ontario.

After moving, the father commenced an application in Ontario seeking to supersede the Connecticut orders regarding custody, access, and child support.

The mother brought a motion to stay the Ontario proceeding, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or, alternatively, that Connecticut was the more convenient forum.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act and the Family Law Act, and that Ontario was the forum conveniens given the children's habitual residence and the location of current evidence.

The maternal grandparents of the parties' daughter brought a motion to be added as parties to the proceeding and to continue litigation on behalf of the deceased respondent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proceeding was stayed under Rule 11.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure due to the respondent's death and no Order to Continue had been obtained.

Furthermore, even if an Order to Continue had been obtained, the motion to add parties would fail under Rule 7(5) of the Family Law Rules because all issues between the original parties had been settled by consent, and the grandparents' claim for access must be brought in a separate application.

The applicant brought a motion alleging the respondent breached a preservation order.

The respondent filed a cross-motion seeking clarification that the preservation order permitted him to sell real property, provided proceeds were held in trust.

The court ordered the respondent to hold net sale proceeds from two properties in trust and to provide a list of assets for his corporations.

The applicant's request to suspend the listings of two other properties was denied due to insufficient evidence, with the court suggesting the respondent recast his cross-motion for leave to sell if parties could not agree.

The respondent sought an urgent hearing for his long motion to set aside ten prior court orders, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to improper service under the Hague Service Convention.

He claimed urgency due to his precarious immigration status, inability to work, frozen bank accounts, revoked Canadian passport by FRO, and expiring health insurance amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbated by pre-existing medical conditions.

The applicant opposed the urgency request.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion for an urgent hearing, finding his urgent situation largely self-made due to his own delays, non-compliance with previous court orders, and failure to seek appropriate relief or return to Canada when able.

The court also noted the potential issue of attornment to jurisdiction.

The respondent brought an urgent motion seeking an order for the applicant to comply with previous court orders and return their youngest son, Calvin, to her residence, with police enforcement if necessary.

The applicant opposed and filed a cross-motion to vary parenting time, which was deemed non-urgent.

The court granted the respondent's motion, finding the applicant's reasons for retaining the child unsubstantiated and noting a history of high conflict and unproven allegations of abuse.

The court ordered Calvin's immediate return and authorized police assistance for enforcement.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking orders related to parenting time and travel for their son during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent unilaterally took the child to Whistler, British Columbia, despite an agreement to remain in Toronto and the applicant's concerns about non-essential travel and COVID-19 risks.

The court found that the respondent breached the terms of a prior British Columbia order (the "Bowden Order") and the parties' subsequent agreement.

The court rejected the respondent's claim of duress and emphasized the "best interests of the child" principle, particularly the "zero tolerance" for reckless exposure to COVID-19 risk.

Interim orders were granted, mandating the respondent to comply with COVID-19 protocols, restricting in-person access to Ontario, and prohibiting the use of public transit for the child.

The respondent brought a motion for interim child support.

The key disputes involved the applicant's income for child support purposes, specifically whether a $730,000 one-time earning from business sales should be included, and whether a $650,000 transfer from the applicant to the respondent for a property down payment constituted an inter vivos gift.

The applicant argued his ongoing payment of over $6,000 in monthly expenses for the matrimonial home should stand in lieu of child support.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding that including the one-time earning would be "double dipping" and that the respondent failed to prove the $650,000 transfer was a gift.

The court set the applicant's income for child support at $194,688.00 and found his property expense contributions covered his child support obligations.

The court also ordered the applicant to ensure the respondent and the parties' son were listed as beneficiaries on his extended health benefits.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking an order for the respondent to comply with an existing parenting schedule and to provide make-up access time for missed visits in March and April 2020.

The respondent had unilaterally suspended the applicant's access, citing various concerns, including the applicant's alleged drug use, apartment cleanliness, building common areas, dog ownership, and a general mistrust, without specific evidence of the applicant's non-compliance with COVID-19 protocols.

The court granted the applicant's motion, emphasizing that existing parenting arrangements should continue during the COVID-19 pandemic, subject to adherence to health precautions, and that the best interests of the child require maintaining important parental relationships safely.

The court also directed the parties to address the make-up access time within their costs submissions if they could not resolve it.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to suspend the respondent father's access visits with their seven-year-old son due to concerns over COVID-19 and interprovincial travel between Ontario and Quebec.

The mother alleged the father failed to practice proper social distancing during a recent visit.

The court found that the father's actions were not reckless and that he had agreed to abide by COVID-19 protocols for future visits.

The motion was dismissed as not urgent, with the court emphasizing the presumption that existing parenting arrangements should continue safely.

The respondent brought a motion seeking immediate resumption of parenting time and make-up time, which had been suspended due to the applicant's concerns about potential COVID-19 exposure from the respondent's workplace and the presence of international students in his home.

The applicant sought to delay the resumption of parenting time until April 6, 2020, following a 14-day self-isolation period for the respondent and the students.

The court, emphasizing the best interests of the child and adopting principles from Ribeiro v. Wright, ordered the parenting schedule to resume on April 6, 2020, conditional on the respondent and the students continuing self-isolation, practicing social distancing, and displaying no COVID-19 symptoms.

The issue of make-up parenting time was deferred to costs submissions if the parties could not resolve it.

The respondent brought an urgent motion for interim child support.

The applicant argued that his payment of over $6,000 per month in family home expenses should stand in lieu of child support.

The court found it could not determine urgency or the merits without further materials from both parties.

The motion was adjourned with a timetable for the delivery of responding and reply materials.