Joanna Lee Birenbaum

The decision addresses an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act in a defamation action brought by Prasanth Tella against A.B., his former partner.

The allegedly defamatory statements were made primarily to the Ottawa Police Service’s Professional Standards Section and to a few other individuals.

The court finds that most of the statements at issue relate to a matter of public interest, but some do not.

The court concludes that the statements made to the Professional Standards Section are protected by absolute privilege and that the plaintiff has not met the burden to show there are no valid defences.

The action is dismissed, with leave to bring a new action regarding certain statements if desired.

The court also grants an anonymity order and a publication ban regarding the defendant’s identity.

The Applicants challenged the Toronto Transit Commission Labour Disputes Resolution Act, 2011, arguing it infringed their freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by prohibiting the right to strike and replacing it with compulsory binding interest arbitration.

The court found the Act substantially interfered with meaningful collective bargaining and was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter, as the TTC was not an "essential service" in the constitutional sense, and the economic and equity concerns did not justify the complete prohibition of the right to strike.

The Act was declared unconstitutional and of no force and effect.

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation appealed an order concerning the disposition of statistical reports arising from the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement and Independent Assessment Process.

The appellant sought directions for the appointment of an independent third-party statistical expert to prepare the reports, following the Chief Adjudicator's inability to do so.

The respondent Attorney General of Canada argued the motion should be remitted to the supervising judge of the Superior Court.

The Court of Appeal remitted the motion for directions to the Superior Court for case management and adjudication, emphasizing the supervising judge's extensive experience and the contentious nature of the proceedings requiring litigation.

This is an appeal concerning the disposition of statistical reports and records arising from the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) and the Independent Assessment Process (IAP).

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR) appealed a lower court order that dismissed a request to generate and archive "proposed Static Reports" and excluded certain "Non-Claim Records." The Court of Appeal found that the Supervising Judge erred in dismissing the request for proposed Static Reports due to insufficient evidentiary foundation regarding confidentiality risks, reliability, and utility for truth and reconciliation.

The court remitted this issue for rehearing and ordered a stay on the destruction of the SADRE database.

The appeal regarding the exclusion of specific Non-Claim Records was dismissed, as the Supervising Judge properly balanced privacy and historical preservation interests.

The applicant, Lo-Ming Lum, brought two motions before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

These motions arose from an earlier action she initiated, which was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious by the Superior Court, with an order barring her from further proceedings without leave.

The motions sought to set aside an order by a single Divisional Court judge and to obtain leave to appeal another interlocutory order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both motions, affirming that appeals from a single Divisional Court judge lie to a panel of the Divisional Court, not the Court of Appeal.

The court also issued an order under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring the applicant to obtain leave from a single judge of the Court of Appeal before taking any further steps or proceedings related to this action in that court, citing her disregard for prior orders and procedural misuse.

This endorsement settles the form of an order following a Request for Direction (RFD) brought by the Chief Adjudicator of the Independent Assessment Process (IAP) concerning the disposition of "Non-Claim Records" from the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA).

The court had previously dismissed the Chief Adjudicator's RFD but directed Canada to bring a proposal for archiving copies of Non-Claim Records with the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR).

The parties disagreed on the wording of the resulting order.

The court resolved these disagreements, largely upholding the Chief Adjudicator's draft order regarding the treatment of privileged documents, the default regime for record retention, and the sealing of certain court exhibits, while rejecting proposed elaborations by the NCTR and Assembly of First Nations.

The appellant, Barry Weisleder, appealed a summary judgment dismissing his defamation action against the respondent union.

The motion judge had found the allegedly defamatory speech was protected by qualified privilege and that malice was not established.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, upholding the finding of qualified privilege and the absence of malice, noting that the ample evidentiary record allowed for a summary judgment decision on malice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, arguing no reasonable cause of action, lack of standing for the Barbra Schlifer Clinic, and that the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs sought declarations of systemic sex discrimination by the London Police Service in investigating sexual assault complaints and an order for a court-supervised external review.

The court allowed the motion in part, affirming that the claim was not plainly and obviously bound to fail and that the Clinic had public interest standing.

However, several paragraphs of the statement of claim were struck for pleading evidence or being vexatious and inflammatory.

This costs endorsement followed a Request for Direction (RFD) concerning privacy protections for the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (Centre) regarding Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) documents.

The court had previously dismissed the RFD brought by Independent Counsel.

In this decision, the court considered costs submissions from Independent Counsel, the Centre, and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), with Canada opposing.

The court declined to award costs to the Centre due to its acknowledged mistake in posting unredacted information and an unreasonable costs request.

However, it awarded the AFN $16,000 in partial indemnity costs, to be paid by Canada, recognizing the AFN's essential and helpful role in representing First Nations' perspective, despite Canada's success in the underlying RFD.

The court found jurisdiction to order Canada to pay costs due to its role as IRSSA administrator.

This endorsement addresses costs arising from Requests for Direction (RFDs) concerning the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) Notice Program.

The Assembly of First Nations (AFN), Inuit Representatives, National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR), and Independent Counsel sought full indemnity costs from Canada for their participation.

The court affirmed its special jurisdiction under IRSSA for costs awards, allowing deviation from standard indemnity principles.

It found Canada to be an appropriate costs payor due to its role as IRSSA administrator, not misconduct.

However, the court denied costs for pre-litigation activities, deeming them voluntary, and found the amounts claimed by NCTR and Independent Counsel excessive and disproportionate.

Ultimately, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to all four parties, significantly less than requested.

The accused, H.F., facing sexual assault charges, brought an application for the production of Children's Aid Society (CAS) records related to the complainant, LFR, his stepdaughter.

The Defence argued H.F. was already in lawful possession of the records from prior child protection proceedings and thus the s. 278 Criminal Code regime for third-party records did not apply.

The Crown and Complainant argued the records were not in lawful possession for criminal proceedings and were subject to s. 278.

The court found that H.F. was not in lawful possession of the CAS records for the purpose of criminal proceedings, and the records were subject to the s. 278 disclosure scheme.

The court further determined that the Defence failed to establish the records were "likely relevant" to an issue at trial and that their production was not necessary in the interests of justice, considering the complainant's privacy rights and the limited probative value of the records.

The application was denied, and the records were deemed inadmissible.