Jennifer P. Saville

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.

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 plaintiff, a former member of a white supremacist group, sued the defendants, also former members or individuals involved in anti-hate work, alleging they appropriated her life story and committed various torts including injurious falsehood, civil conspiracy, and negligence.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims, and one defendant counterclaimed for defamation, invasion of privacy, and appropriation of personality.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims as frivolous and vexatious, finding no evidence to support any of the alleged torts.

The court granted the defendant's counterclaim, awarding $100,000 in general damages, $50,000 in aggravated damages, and $50,000 in punitive damages, along with a permanent injunction.

A former police informant, John Doe (previously Cecil Kirby), sued the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) for breach of contract, breach of privacy, and negligence after the CBC rebroadcast a 1984 interview in 2015.

The plaintiff alleged an oral agreement that the interview would only be shown once.

The CBC moved for summary judgment, asserting the written contract granted them full rights to the content and denying any oral agreement.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no admissible evidence to support the alleged oral agreement and that the written contract provided lawful justification for the rebroadcast, thereby dismissing all claims.

The Ryerson Students' Union (RSU) moved for an interlocutory injunction to prevent Ryerson University from terminating an operating agreement and to compel the release of withheld student fees.

The University had terminated the agreement citing financial mismanagement by a previous RSU executive.

The court found that the RSU had taken prompt corrective actions, establishing a strong prima facie case that it had not repudiated the agreement.

The withholding of fees constituted irreparable harm, as it would force the RSU to cease operations.

The balance of convenience favored the RSU, as the University's proposed new governance process was initiated after the RSU's claim and its arguments regarding financial control were not substantiated.

The motion was allowed, ordering the University to comply with the agreement and release the funds.

The appellants (Roustan/RINC) appealed a trial decision that found Grant Thornton LLP (GT) breached a contract but awarded no damages for share losses, dismissing their action.

GT cross-appealed on costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's causation analysis or refusal to award various damages (lost opportunity, share loss, special, nominal), and the cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's costs award as not an error in principle or plainly wrong.

The plaintiffs successfully defeated the defendant's anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and sought partial indemnity costs of $43,641.16.

The court considered the presumption in s. 137.1(8) that a successful responding party is not entitled to costs unless appropriate in the circumstances.

The court found that the plaintiffs' defamation claim was weak and appeared to be used strategically to extract a gag order from the defendant.

Given the strategic behaviour of both parties, the court declined to award costs to the plaintiffs.

The applicants, members of a pro-life student group, sought judicial review of the Ryerson Students’ Union’s decision to deny their group "Student Group status." The RSU denied status based on its pro-choice, pro-feminist policies.

The court addressed whether it had jurisdiction to review the RSU's decision and whether the decision attracted Charter scrutiny.

The court found the RSU to be a private entity, not subject to administrative law principles or Charter scrutiny in this context, and dismissed the application.