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 sued the defendant for breach of contract and negligence regarding the installation of a video wall system, claiming the system never worked.

The defendant counterclaimed for the unpaid balance of the contract and extra charges, and moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and grant his counterclaim.

The court first granted a misnomer motion to correct the plaintiff's corporate names.

On the merits, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the defendant completed the work, the system functioned properly, and the delays were not the defendant's fault.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and granted summary judgment on the defendant's counterclaim for the unpaid balance and extras.

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.

The plaintiff sued for damages arising from altercations with security guards.

Shortly before the jury trial commenced, the defendants conducted surveillance on the plaintiff and disclosed the video and report to the plaintiff's counsel.

During the trial, the defendants sought to use the surveillance as substantive evidence or for impeachment.

The plaintiff argued the evidence should be excluded due to late disclosure.

The court held that the defendants required leave to introduce the evidence under Rule 48.04, as the matter had been set down for trial.

The court declined to exclude the evidence outright, finding it relevant and material, but granted the plaintiff a 1.5-day adjournment to review the footage and prepare.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in a prior civil proceeding for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the civil court had already made findings regarding the applicant's termination and competency, and dismissed those portions of the application to prevent relitigation.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed regarding allegations of discriminatory comments and a poisoned work environment, as these were not raised or considered in the civil action.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding them liable for fraudulent misrepresentation regarding a latent defect in a property they sold to the respondent.

The trial judge found that the appellants recklessly answered a Disclosure Statement regarding basement leakage.

The Divisional Court applied the Housen standard of review and found no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions that the basement leak was a latent defect and that the appellants' reckless answers constituted fraudulent misrepresentation.

The appeal was dismissed.