3 total
Malicious prosecution claim against sexual assault complainant dismissed under anti-SLAPP legislation.
The defendant, a former student, reported to her guidance counsellor and police that she had been sexually assaulted by the plaintiff, her former piano teacher.
The police investigated and charged the plaintiff, but the charges were later stayed.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for malicious prosecution.
The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act (s. 137.1) and, in the alternative, for summary judgment.
The court granted the motion, finding that the expression related to a matter of public interest, the malicious prosecution claim lacked substantial merit because the police (not the defendant) initiated the proceedings, and the public interest in protecting the reporting of sexual assaults outweighed the harm to the plaintiff.
Motion to add related corporate defendant granted on the basis of misnomer.
The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action moved to amend her statement of claim to add a related corporation as a co-defendant.
The court found that the proposed defendant operated from the same address, used the same personnel, and shared legal counsel with the named defendant.
Applying the test for misnomer, the court concluded that the proposed defendant would have known the claim was directed at it.
The motion to amend the statement of claim was granted.
Security for costs ordered where corporate plaintiff owed unpaid costs and showed weak merits.
The defendants moved for an order requiring the corporate plaintiff to post security for costs under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The defendants relied primarily on Rule 56.01(1)(c), arguing that the plaintiff had outstanding unpaid costs awards from prior litigation involving the same parties.
The court found that the defendants established entitlement to security for costs given the unpaid costs orders and the absence of evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff’s claim had a good chance of success.
The plaintiff, which conceded it was not impecunious, failed to provide supporting evidence for serious allegations of improvident power-of-sale transactions and misconduct by the defendants.
The court ordered the plaintiff to post $25,000 in security for costs within 30 days, failing which the action would be stayed.
