Jonathan Stainsby

The moving parties (respondents in the main action) sought to enforce a settlement agreement or have it declared void ab initio, arguing the responding parties (applicants in the main action) failed to fulfill their obligation to withdraw criminal proceedings in Iran and remove Interpol Red Notices.

The court interpreted the agreement using the principles from Sattva, finding the responding parties only agreed to request the withdrawal and cooperate, as they lacked the authority to compel the independent Iranian Prosecutor or Interpol.

The court rejected expert evidence claiming the responding parties were Iranian government-controlled entities capable of commanding such actions.

The motion was dismissed, and the responding parties were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, a prominent lawyer and political activist, brought a defamation action against the defendant, an internet broadcaster, over videos alleging the plaintiff was a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic extremism.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment.

The court found the case appropriate for summary judgment, holding that the defendant's statements were defamatory and that the defences of fair comment and responsible communication failed because the statements were presented as facts, lacked a factual foundation, and were made with malice and reckless disregard for the truth.

The court awarded the plaintiff $500,000 in general and aggravated damages and granted a permanent injunction requiring the removal of the videos and prohibiting the defendant from making further statements about the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sued for unpaid invoices, and the defendant counterclaimed alleging fraudulent overbilling.

During a case management conference, the court heard from witnesses regarding the billing system to clarify facts.

The defendant subsequently argued these discussions were without prejudice settlement discussions and sought to limit a witness's affidavit.

The court rejected this argument, holding that under the Rules of Civil Procedure and its inherent jurisdiction, it has broad case management powers to make procedural orders and clarify facts to advance the case to a summary trial.

The court ordered the preparation of the affidavit and set a timetable for the summary trial.

The defendant brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a libel action commenced by the plaintiff, the former Chair of the Toronto Port Authority.

The action arose from a statement attributed to the defendant in a magazine article about Porter Airlines.

The court found the statement related to a matter of public interest and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe the proceeding had substantial merit or that the defendant had no valid defence.

The action was dismissed, and the defendant was awarded full indemnity costs of $80,000, but the court declined to award damages for bad faith.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(d).

The plaintiff opposed, arguing impecuniosity caused by the defendant's failure to pay outstanding invoices.

The court found the plaintiff failed to establish impecuniosity due to insufficient financial disclosure.

However, the court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff had a good chance of success on the merits and that its financial difficulties were largely caused by the defendant's refusal to pay approved invoices.