Julian Falconer

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the defendant sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that full indemnity was not appropriate because the action was not a SLAPP suit, and instead awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Noting that both parties engaged in an unnecessary 'deep dive' into the evidence, the court fixed the costs at $130,000 all-inclusive, payable in two installments.

The plaintiff, former interim Commissioner of the OPP, brought a defamation action against the Premier of Ontario over public statements alleging the plaintiff breached the Police Services Act.

The defendant moved to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendant's expression related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff could not show that the defence of fair comment had no real prospect of success, and the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the public interest in permitting the action to continue.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission sought directions regarding Canada's obligations under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement to provide documents archived at Library and Archives Canada (LAC) and documents relating to the TRC's legacy mandate.

Canada moved to strike the TRC's request, arguing the TRC lacked capacity and standing, and moved to strike several affidavits.

The court held that the TRC had capacity to bring the proceedings and declined to strike most of the affidavits.

On the substantive issues, the court ruled that Canada's obligation to provide relevant documents extends to those archived at LAC, but that the TRC's legacy mandate does not include evaluating Canada's policy responses, meaning Canada need not produce documents relating to those responses.

Following approval of an infant settlement, the plaintiffs sought clarification of an earlier endorsement regarding alternative relief requested in their motion.

The moving parties had asked, in the alternative to sealing the record, that all references to the settlement amount be redacted from the motion materials and judgment pursuant to s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court confirmed that it had been aware of the request but declined to grant it.

The judge held that the parties’ agreement to keep settlement terms confidential was not sufficient to justify either sealing the file or redacting the settlement figures.

The evidentiary record did not support restricting public access to the court record.