Jessica Jean Barrow

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) sued Quebecor Media Inc., Sun Media Corporation, TVA Group Inc., Jerry Agar, and Avi Benlolo for defamation.

The claim arose from statements published in print and broadcast media in 2014, alleging that CUPW and its members were terrorist sympathizers and supported Hamas, following a demonstration where CUPW flags were seen near a Hamas flag.

The court addressed CUPW's standing as an unincorporated association to sue for defamation, finding it had standing.

The court then examined the defamatory meaning of the impugned statements and the defendants' defences of truth, fair comment, responsible communication, and statutory privilege.

The court found that the defendants successfully established the defence of fair comment, as their opinions were honestly held and based on a sufficient factual substratum, and also discharged their duty of responsible communication and statutory privilege.

The action was dismissed with costs.

The applicant landlord sought a declaration that it had the right to early terminate a commercial lease and an order for the respondent tenant to vacate.

The lease, originally from 1994, had been extended and amended multiple times.

The dispute centered on whether a landlord's early termination right, present in previous lease iterations and linked to the tenant's right of first refusal, continued to apply under the most recent "Lease Amendment and Extension Agreement" from 2016, which did not explicitly mention the provision.

The court found that the landlord failed to demonstrate a continuing right of early termination during the current lease term (2022-2027), as the specific language of the agreements limited this right to particular renewal terms that had expired.

The application was dismissed, allowing the tenant to remain in occupation until the lease's expiry in 2027.

This appeal concerns the application of Ontario's anti-SLAPP provision, s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, in a defamation action arising from negative online reviews posted by a client against contractors.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the public interest in the expression outweighed the harm.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred by unduly focusing on SLAPP hallmarks, failing to adequately consider reputational harm, and not qualitatively assessing the value of the respondent's vitriolic expression.

The Court conducted a fresh analysis, concluding that the significant harm to the appellants' professional reputations outweighed the minimal public interest in the malicious and scurrilous statements, reinstating the defamation action.