Jean-François Lalonde

The Applicant, successful in an oppression application under the Canada Business Corporations Act, sought substantial indemnity costs after recovering a modest $14,555.34.

The court assessed the Applicant's costs outline, which included two offers to settle.

The first offer was deemed invalid for costs consequences under Rule 49.11 as it was not made to all jointly and severally liable defendants and was not unilaterally controllable.

The second offer, while made to both respondents, was structured in a way that required an ad hoc assessment of costs, making it difficult to determine if the result was better than the offer.

Emphasizing proportionality given the modest recovery and the significant costs incurred by the Applicant (including multiple lawyers), the court awarded a proportionate sum of $20,000, all inclusive, payable jointly and severally by the Respondents, significantly less than the Applicant's claim.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from a motion judge's decision to dismiss an Anti-SLAAP motion.

The appellate court found no error in the motion judge's application of the relevant factors under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, noting that her approach was consistent with the Supreme Court's framework in 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association, despite not having the benefit of that decision at the time.

The motion judge correctly limited her evidentiary review to the threshold requirements of the Anti-SLAAP motion, leaving deeper factual findings for later stages.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of an anti-SLAPP motion brought by the defendant, Michael Bueckert, and a cross-motion by the plaintiff, Michele Di Franco, to strike Mr. Bueckert's affidavit.

The court found no reason to depart from the statutory presumption against awarding costs on the anti-SLAPP motion, as it was not frivolous and the expression related to a matter of public interest.

However, on the motion to strike the affidavit, the court awarded Mr. Bueckert $3000 in partial indemnity costs against Mr. Di Franco, after considering factors under Rule 57.01(1) and discounting the amount for work that may have future utility.

Michael Bueckert brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action brought by Michele Di Franco.

Di Franco also brought a cross-motion to strike Bueckert's affidavit.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that Di Franco's defamation claim had substantial merit and Bueckert's defenses of fair comment and justification might not succeed.

The court also found that the harm to Di Franco's reputation, particularly as a law student, was sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting Bueckert's expression, especially given the vitriolic nature of some of the statements.

The defendant, Mr. Corriveau, successfully obtained summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claim and on his counterclaim.

This endorsement addresses the costs of the motion and the action.

Mr. Corriveau sought costs on a partial indemnity basis up to May 5, 2017, and substantial indemnity thereafter, totaling $111,140.18.

The plaintiffs, Custom Home Interiors Inc. and Obvious Advantage Inc., acknowledged Mr. Corriveau's entitlement to partial indemnity costs but disputed the quantum, arguing the proceedings were uneconomical.

The court awarded Mr. Corriveau partial indemnity costs of $70,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, finding his offer to settle did not warrant substantial indemnity costs due to its limited acceptance window and timing.

The court also reduced claimed fees for excessive time on the summary judgment motion and disallowed fees related to a Law Society complaint.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old store manager with 20 years of service, was placed on a performance improvement plan with arbitrary and unfair goals.

After meeting the goals, she was offered a demotion, which she refused, claiming constructive dismissal.

The court found the employer did not have just cause for dismissal, as the plaintiff was not incompetent and the performance goals were impossible to meet.

The court held the plaintiff was constructively dismissed and awarded 20 months' pay in lieu of notice, totaling $104,499.33, finding her refusal to accept the demotion and her subsequent mitigation efforts were reasonable.