James Manson

The appellants, defendants in a proposed class action arising from the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa, appealed the dismissal of their anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no reversible error in his conclusions that there were grounds to believe the plaintiffs' claims for private and public nuisance had substantial merit, that the defendants had no valid defence, and that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought costs following its successful resistance of the defendants' summary judgment motion and its successful motion for leave to deliver late affidavit evidence.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $42,085.84 for the summary judgment motion, reducing the claimed amount due to over-lawyering and deferring the costs of expert reports to trial.

The court also awarded $2,500 for the evidentiary leave motion, reducing the claimed amount because the motion was necessitated by the plaintiff's breach of the Rules.

The defendant insurer brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for insurance coverage after fish were contaminated by oil from an ice-making machine during processing.

The insurer relied on the 'Process Clause' and 'Fault in Preparation' exclusions in the all-risk policy.

The court dismissed the insurer's motion and granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, finding that the accidental contamination was a fortuitous event not intended as part of the processing or preparation, and therefore the exclusions did not apply.

The parties settled an eight-year litigation regarding custom-built moulds.

Following the settlement, the defendants brought a motion for contempt alleging the plaintiff violated interlocutory orders by improperly storing two moulds outdoors, causing them to deteriorate.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the contempt motion.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding the underlying orders did not mandate any specific storage method and the contempt motion was a frivolous and vexatious attempt to re-litigate the settled action.

The insured corporation sought a declaration that its directors’ and officers’ liability insurer was obligated to indemnify it for defence costs and settlement payments arising from Ministry of Labour enforcement proceedings under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Former employees of a predecessor company claimed termination and related entitlements, and the Ministry determined that the insured corporation was a related employer under s. 4 of the Act and jointly and severally liable.

The insurer denied coverage, arguing that no claim had been made against the insured or any insured person during the policy period and that the alleged conduct did not constitute a covered wrongful act.

The court held that a claim had been made during the policy period because the Ministry was investigating and pursuing the corporation and its director for liability.

The court further held that liability as a related employer for wrongful dismissal constituted an “Employment Practices Wrongful Act” within the policy and was not excluded by the termination notice exclusion.

The insurer was therefore obligated to indemnify the insured for its losses.

The defendants brought a motion requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs in a solicitor’s negligence action arising from the dismissal of the plaintiff’s earlier employment and disability benefits lawsuit for delay.

The court applied Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Ontario, having lived abroad for extended periods and lacking exigible assets within the jurisdiction.

The plaintiff failed to provide sufficiently detailed financial disclosure to establish impecuniosity and did not demonstrate a good chance of success on the merits of the negligence claim.

The court also considered fairness to both parties given the overlapping proceedings and litigation history.

Security for costs was ordered in the amount of $40,000 on a partial indemnity basis up to the completion of examinations for discovery.