John A. Nicholson

The plaintiff, Fredrick Robinson, brought an uncontested defamation action against the defendant, Jeanette Niganobe, for false and defamatory Facebook posts.

The defendant had accused the plaintiff of drug addiction, drug dealing, financial and emotional abuse, and abandoning his family, which negatively impacted his business and personal life.

The court applied the three-part test for defamation from Grant v. Torstar Corp. and found the defendant liable.

General damages of $50,000 and aggravated damages of $25,000 were awarded, reflecting the high-handed and oppressive nature of the defendant's conduct, which was intended to gain advantage in family law proceedings.

Injunctive relief was denied due to the absence of recent defamatory statements.

This appeal concerns the application of a non-publication order under section 486.5(9) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario analyzed the Dagenais/Mentuck/Sherman Estate test for discretionary publication bans, balancing privacy interests against the open court principle.

The court confirmed that the mandatory publication ban under section 486.5(9) applies to information related to the application for the ban itself, and amended the lower court's order to explicitly include this mandatory ban.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their medical malpractice Statement of Claim to substitute Dr. Renato Natale for the pseudonym 'Dr. John/Jane Doe Gynecological Attending'.

The motion was brought after the presumptive expiry of the limitation period.

The court applied the 'litigation finger' test and found that a person with knowledge of the facts would be aware of the true identity of the misnamed defendant from reading the pleading.

Finding no undue prejudice to the proposed defendant, the court exercised its discretion to grant the amendment.

The respondent and the deceased operated a jewellery store through a company and each named the other as sole beneficiary of a life insurance policy.

Following the deceased's death, the respondent sought a declaration that he was entitled to the insurance proceeds and judgment on a promissory note.

The estate claimed the proceeds were subject to a buy-sell agreement and constructive trust.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment declaring the respondent entitled to the proceeds and dismissed the estate's counterclaim, but directed the promissory note claim to trial.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a motions judge's order certifying two class proceedings seeking restitution of lottery licensing fees, including claims that were prima facie time-barred.

The court granted leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4)(b), finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's analysis regarding whether a class proceeding was the preferable procedure and whether a sub-class should have been created for the time-barred claims.

The court also found the issues raised were of general importance to the development of class action law.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the action against a hospital in a medical malpractice proceeding, the court addressed costs.

The hospital sought recovery of its costs for both the summary judgment motion and the broader action.

The court considered whether a Bullock or Sanderson order was appropriate and the impact of a co-defendant physician’s refusal to admit a key factual issue relating to nursing care.

Exercising discretion under Rule 57.01(1)(g) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court held that the physician’s refusal to admit the fact necessitated the motion and justified shifting the hospital’s costs to him.

The hospital’s costs were fixed for the motion, the action, and the costs hearing.